Microsoft Confirms Windows Seven

Windows Seven now has an official ship target — 2010.

At Microsoft's Global Exchange (MGX) annual sales conference in Orlando this week, Microsoft shared a bit more — albeit at a high level — on Windows Seven, according to a copy of a slide deck I saw that was distributed to the field sales force during the conference. Among the information shared was that Microsoft is anticipating it will take at least three years from now to get the next version of Windows client out the door.

Last time anyone got Microsoft to talk dates about Windows Seven, the next big Windows client release, a Windows exec slipped up and said something about 2009.

Microsoft officials told MGX attendees that the company is currently internally planning Windows Seven. So far, the company has determined Windows Seven will come in both 32- and 64-bit flavors. No word on how many SKUs or any kind of guidance on features was provided, but Microsoft did say it would address both consumer and business segments with Windows Seven. Microsoft is mulling the concept of how to extend Windows Seven with subscription-based services, according to the deck — more like Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP), which Microsoft currently offers to its Software Assurance customers, than Windows Live, however.

News source: Mary Jo Foley @ ZDNet
Link: Neowin Discussion Thanks Mr. Dee

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Long iPhone Contract Hides Non-personal Data Tracking

Next Story

Apple gets money every month for iPhones purchased

147 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Personally, I feel as if this information should not have been shared by Microsoft. Vista is still young - there is no need to even begin discussing their next OS. They should be putting more of their resources into making Vista perfect, at least for the time being. True that it is good to plan for the future but this OS is not a concern atm.

^ You kinda skipped XP there didn't ya? If it was your logic, then XP would be the "Windows ME" and Vista would be the perfect one.

I like how you try to make a trend, as if Microsoft alternates between crappy and good, and it's "somehow" synced with their product distribution cycle.

kingofthecarts said,
This is looking like the ME stuff.

ME = Sucks
2000 = Worked almost perfect

Vista = ME
New OS = Works way better??

I bet you can't give one good reason why ME sucked. You are just following the trend of others who don't know either. I upgraded to ME in 2001, I also upgraded my brothers PC to it and it worked just fine. There were no issues with ME except for a memory leak issue which I didn't even notice and there was a patch for it. In August '01, a virus wreaked havoc on that ME system, I tried to recover it but could not, didn't bother reinstalling and went back to 98 SE since there were no major differences in ME to justify it. But the point is, nothings wrong with it, my brother kept running it until he upgraded to XP and so did many of my friends, I know some still on it even now. I consider it to be fastest 9x version of Windows to come out of MS.

Why did 2000 work almost perfect? Add reasoning please? 2000 was good for many reasons, worked great with Active Directory on Corporate networks running 2000 Server. The driver library days of NT 4 were of the past. USB, DirectX support, driver signing for more stable device drivers from third party, more robust and stable, nicer color palette but at the same time, it was slower and required more processing power.

XP for me was, the best of both worlds from a consumer perspective, I didn't move to it until 2003. I liked Luna, it was the latest and greatest and I had to have it. It wasn't a detrimental upgrade, but nice at the same time and just the improvements it has received since its release made it more relevant than 2000 over time. But, features like FUS, improved Windows Update, grouped window buttons, two pane Start menu has made it a really good release for consumers not to mention the fact its the start to merging the ease of use that came from 9x with the stability of NT.

Vista if its an ME, its also great. Vista still has some issues to iron out in areas specific to better 64 bit device driver support from third parties and better boot time. But, I like AERO Glass, just like how I liked Luna. Features such as Instant Search, more secure, Photo Gallery, MCE, make it a nice release. I could say a lot more, but so much of its features have been made available for XP I am afraid of being cornered on feature specifics.

Mr. Dee,

ME was bloated by a bunch of poorly thought out add-ons applications which had memory leaks and therefore crashed like teenagers on prom night. Everybody knows this (and MS admits it!), so I really don't think it's a good idea to pretend ME wasn't a monstrous disaster in every way.

excalpius said,
Mr. Dee,

ME was bloated by a bunch of poorly thought out add-ons applications which had memory leaks and therefore crashed like teenagers on prom night. Everybody knows this (and MS admits it!), so I really don't think it's a good idea to pretend ME wasn't a monstrous disaster in every way.

I am not pretending. ME never had any problems on my system except for the virus that compromised it and if I had updated Norton the same week, I would not have caught that W32.worm. ME really pioneered a lot of the technologies that came in XP and Vista:

Feature rich Help System
System Restore (although the implementation was not as reliable as Vista's)
Movie Maker
Thumbnail photos (although 2000 introduced first)
Improved Internet Connection sharing and networking

The only adds on that come with ME that you call bloat are the typical ones that have been in Windows for years or have been available to it as downloads, Games, MSN Explorer 7, MSN Messenger some of which people used anyway.

warwagon said,
Why still 2 different 32 and 64 bit versions Why can't they just do what OSX does and do both 64 and 32 in one

Who knows, maybe thats the plan with Windows 7. There was no mention of 32 and 64 bit Windows 7 coming on separate disk like Vista does today. People need to stop jumping to conclusions.

As for one OS X Leopard (and I assume you are referring to Leopard since Tiger is not available as a universal binary), it comes in 4 separate platforms on "one" double layer DVD:

Leopard PPC G4 (32-Bit)
Leopard PPC G5 (64-Bit)
Leopard Intel x86 (32-Bit) Core Duo
Leopard Intel x64 (64-Bit) Core 2 Duo, Xeon

It's a shame how announcements turn into trolling sessions and flamewars etc. Personally I just read it with an open mind with a "wait and see" attitude.

Mr Spoon said,
No need to get Vista then, i'll wait till 2010.

People always say that. You might not move to it immediately, but you eventually will. I was on 2000 until I moved to XP in 2003. You will say the same about Windows 7 and the cycle continues.

I know people who are still using Windows 98 SE. You can't just assume that everyone will move to Vista eventually just because you will. Personally I don't plan on upgrading to Vista, I tried it for a week and didn't like it. I'm quite sure XP will serve me perfectly well for many years to come.

At some point some venture capitalist who is capable of thinking outside of the box and who isn't afraid to play the long game, is going to get together some of the best and brightest up coming and let them write an operating system from the ground up, one that isn't tied into backwards compatibility with programs written for windows 95/98. It seems that the technology keeps making leaps and bounds but that the operating systems just receive very minor tweaks for which you have to pay a far from minor fortune. OS X was vaguely exciting and Linux continues to impress but... Considering how many people are deeply disappointed, we're not talking about niche market, we're talking about the next ipod.

MS has the deepest of pockets on the planet. Every venture capitalist knows this. The reason that no one will fund competition versus windows is simple fear, and rightly so. Especially with the way the government has granted Microsoft a monopoly in the OS market, yet offers only the slightest of regulation/oversight - an unheard of situation. By all rights, MS should have been granted a monopoly and then forced to share the codebase as a result, for a piece of the action of course - the way a public utility or other monopoly operates.

So serious VC players know that at this point a NEW player in the OS market is nigh impossible. Microsoft would squash them like a grape and the administration wouldn't lift a finger.

Therefore, the only viable options are...

Apple - Microsoft has never been as vulnerable as it is now. The massive Vista missteps in both release and user uptake/interest, have coincided with a new generation of hardware with little legacy driver issues (the big Achilles heel for OS X, since the MS legacy driver codebase is unfathomably monstrous/strong). However, since EVERYTHING is now on the motherboard or USB, this is the first time in 20 years that this legacy driver issue is about to become a non issue. And that opens up the possibility for Apple to go after MS head to head, by selling OS X for existing PC users. The only programming issue remaining would be the wizards needed to keep whatever data/preferences would be relevant and an office suite (since Apple already has superior applications bundled with OS X for all other end user OS tasks). After all, MS was built entirely on software, not hardware, sales. Don't think that Jobs hasn't figured out that this is the real secret to escaping the niche Apple has held steadily.

Linux - this is where your idea of an entrepreneur coming in is the most likely, as the notes about Apple's opportunity right now are valid here as well. Unfortunately, the very history of "free" Linux makes it difficult to see anyone able to bring enough of the ace players together to put up a concerted effort against the Windows juggernaut. The "shareware OS" nature of Linux is in direct opposition to the commercial needs to lock a codebase so there is some tangible value to SELL to the consumer. In other words, for anyone to challenge Microsoft's hegemony they need to SELL a product head to head with MS. And if everyone is just downloading it for free, there's no business model, no profit, no incentive (something MS is facing from the other direction, by the way). Giving the programmers a piece of the action would cover the how on the front end. Vision and will are needed on the back end.

However, Linux has an additional Achilles heel here, one that Apple does not have - in that the APPLICATIONS Apple bundles with OS X are vastly superior to those bundled with XP+ (aka Vista). Even I have to admit that. Where Linux is weakest is that the applications for common uses for Linux are at the barely adequate stage of development overall, with most actually in the LOL kludged together category. Be honest. Most purely Linux apps are just laughably bad/unusable...still. And so while Apple has superior bundled applications and a tiny market share, Microsoft has adequate bundled applications and massive market share (and HUGE cash reserves), and Linux has laughable/non-existent bundled applications, historically runs counter to being sold for a profit, and a nearly invisible market share.

None of these issues are insurmountable with funding, will, and vision (the last two being the kickers), but if I had to take Vegas odds on this, look for Apple to try and leverage their application strength (what really matters to end users, and where Vista completely missed the mark) by a modest investment in the foreseeable future - that is, over a white knight (Google + Someone with Vision) investing in taking Linux to the next level.

Now...Google + Apple...now that's a combination that would shake MS to the very foundations...especially if Google succeeds in opening up the wireless Internet for free/cheap. What Google lacks in style and marketing (re: everything), Apple makes up in spades. And with the iPhone etc. setting Apple's trend lines clearly to ubiquitous WiFi touch devices for the foreseeable future, Google's applications, databases, and core engineering nerds would be just what the Apple doctor ordered to take on Redmond.

BUT, I think Google has made it clear that it is smart enough to play both sides of the fence by making itself indispensable to ALL OS contenders - the same way MS played both the home and business camps to win the PC monopoly it enjoys today. I think Google is happy to become a sort of uber-ISP/Internet-middleware for at least for the foreseeable future. :)

Regardless, if anyone was going to take on Windows, they'd already be well on their way, for the next 2-3 years MS is at its weakest. Windows 7 will be Surface Computing/Touch-based in a very compelling way, as the Vista display codebase is really quite elegant in that regard, even if they released Vista without anything to really show it off...ahem.

Check out thirteen23.com for examples of what Vista can do (vis a vis Apple) right out of the box...if someone will just envision and encode it. Cool stuff and simple. Apple is already releasing these kinds of sexy applications, but iPhone development delayed the release of Apple's sexiest stuff from this fall's release to next fall, I believe. Meanwhile, inertia (and fixing/finishing Vista) will delay Microsoft from really making Vista sexy until it's called Windows 7.

My four cents.

excalpius said,
[cropped]

Unfortunately, Apple is quite happy in their own niche market, and can create their own market easily (read: iPod/iPhone). They sell hardware, remember? They sell an amazing operating system because it runs on their hardware, and they open it up to Windows through solutions like Boot Camp/Microsoft Office, so that people will buy more of those shiny white computers. They DON'T WANT more operating system market share. OS marketshare is only a reflection (a result) of hardware markertshare, which is what they really want.

Linux still has a thick usability barrier. I don't want to use the damn sudo tool, not once, and neither does my auntie. Even when I do, where's the compatibility? Like you've mentioned, most Linux applications are crap to use and half as intuitive. This scares people away. Fortunately, stuff like that is easy to fix.

I agree about Google. Google stands to rule the web. The desktop is another matter. I haven't seen one of their desktop apps that's been half as popular as their search engine.

I also don't like how you call Vista, XP+, though I could understand where you're coming from. At least you didn't call it ME+.

In short, Microsoft has no competition in the OS market at the moment. Despite what Apple/Linux/OS2 fanboys want us to think, Microsoft is still THE defacto standard. Which is unfortunate because if there was better competition Microsoft would wake up like they did with IE 7 (and still manage to pump out crap, but that's another story).

Good points.

The reason that I can Vista XP+ is that is how the end user sees it right now. There is nothing compelling about Vista whatsoever as far as they are concerned. No killer aps. No killer tech. And the eye candy upgrade (possible with Stardock products on XP) is counterbalanced by the bugs and frustration factor many average users are mentioning.

So, from THEIR perspective, they see nothing compelling about Vista. It's just a prettier Windows XP, which for most of them, isn't worth $200 to $400, nor should it be.

I hope that by next year, Vista can come with an out of the box experience and offers some next generation applications that can take advantage of all the tastiness under the hood. Right now, it's a Ferrari under the hood, but an Accord on the outside.

lol i liek how they are saying 3years is bad anyone noticed how many years it was between win 3.1 (1992) oh look 3 years and win95 and 98 oh wait 3 years oh wait 1 year and boom 98se oh wait 1 year windows ME in 2000 oh wait less than 1 year win2k in 2000 holy **** 1 more year and bang xp in 2001 then vista in 2006

geez get over it children and let them do there god damn job

DKAngel said,
lol i liek how they are saying 3years is bad anyone noticed how many years it was between win 3.1 (1992) oh look 3 years and win95 and 98 oh wait 3 years oh wait 1 year and boom 98se oh wait 1 year windows ME in 2000 oh wait less than 1 year win2k in 2000 holy **** 1 more year and bang xp in 2001 then vista in 2006

geez get over it children and let them do there god damn job

Actually, MS has been on a fast pace yearly release cycle since 1990:

Windows 3.0 - 1990
Windows 3.1 - 1992
Windows NT 3.1 - 1993
Windows For Workgroups - 1994
Windows NT 3.5 - 1994
Windows NT 3.51 - 1995
Windows 95 - 1995
Windows NT 4.0 - 1996
Windows 98 - 1998
Windows 98 SE - 1999
Windows 2000 - 2000 (late 1999 RTM)
Windows ME - 2000
Windows XP - 2001
Windows XP Tablet and Media Center - 2002
Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium Systems version 2003 - 2003
Windows Server 2003 - 2003
Windows XP Media Center 2004 - 2004 (OEM only)
Windows XP SP2 - 2004 (trust me, it did a lot in the security department for XP to be justified as a new release).
Windows XP Tablet and Media Center 2005 - 2004
Windows XP Professional x64 - 2005
Windows Server 2003 R2 - 2005
Windows Vista - 2006 (RTM)
Windows Home Server - 2007
Windows Server 2008 - 2007 (RTM)

Windows Server Centro - 2008
Windows Server MidMarket Server - 2008
Windows Server 2008 R2 - 2009
Windows 7 - 2010
Windows 7 Server - 2011

Mr. Dee said,
Actually, MS has been on a fast pace yearly release cycle since 1990:

Actually, all of the XP releases, including 2003 server, are just market segmentation designations for what are really minor additions/revisions to the XP codebase. I mean, honestly, Media Center/Tablet as a separate OS designation? Home Server? Puh-lease.

So realistically, XP was 2001 and Vista was 2007 (sorry but it's not ready for prime time as a proper release until later this year and everyone except MS admits/understands this).

So, what this list really shows (thank you for typing it up! ) was what we already know, in that Vista was due for a 2004 release and was delayed by both SP2 (the only major codebase overhaul on your list) and the complete scrapping of the first Vista/Longhorn so they could start over again.

Assuming MS has their coding methodology worked out now, it would make sense to see Windows 7.0 in 2010, assuming of course that A) it is based on the Vista code base (re: they aren't scrapping things yet AGAIN), and B) they can have Vista properly "finished" by the end of this year (re: SP1 is really the release build of Vista as far as I am concerned).

Unfortunately, I think this is a big mistake. They really should consider adopting annual releases, highlighting new features for a small upgrade fee. Assuming the Vista codebase is where they want to be, if MS waits three+ years to release what appears (to end users at least) to be yet another incremental improvement (as XP appeared to 2000 and Vista appears to XP), they're just going to look like monstrous dinosaurs compared to the marketing machine of Apple.

Three years is a long time between hardware cycles for an OS...and if Apple is really smart, they'll release OSX as a standalone OS for all modern PCs sometime this OS cycle, since no modern PC will exist anymore that uses any of the legacy hardware Windows Vista is/was still stuck supporting - so the driver codebase issue ceases to become a major point of differentiation. Well, at least, that's what I'd be thinking if I were Steve Jobs. After all, Microsoft became the monster it is by selling software, not hardware...

Just my two cents.

excalpius said,

Actually, all of the XP releases, including 2003 server, are just market segmentation designations for what are really minor additions/revisions to the XP codebase. I mean, honestly, Media Center/Tablet as a separate OS designation? Home Server? Puh-lease.

So realistically, XP was 2001 and Vista was 2007 (sorry but it's not ready for prime time as a proper release until later this year and everyone except MS admits/understands this).

We could play semantics with this. We could call 98, ME minor additions/revisions since they maintained the same version number as Windows 95, "version 4.0" but were still marketed as new versions. The same code be said for NT 4, which was just a "minor" release since it just added a shell update to make it easier for corporations to take advantage of ui that was first included in 95.

My original post was not referring to kernel changes, its yearly release cycles.

I find it extremely humorous that college students are making such sweeping statements and dire predictions. (no specific poster is being targeted here, but I don't suppose that will matter, )

Guys, I have hired and fired kids with advanced IT degrees because they came in "knowing everything" and it turned out they had no real-world skills. Among those skills: diplomacy, the ability to listen and learn and deference to their superiors. Book learning does not necessarily prepare you for an actual job. The internship is supposed to give you a taste of the real thing and hopefully you will learn more there so that you can survive.

I have been in IT/MIS jobs for nearly 30 years now and am VP of Technical Operations for a company where I have had more than one (unjustifiably) arrogant and cocksure young pup come in and try to show me how much smarter they were. There are a few of them that are still saying "You want fries with that?" all day long.

Unless you are gifted with true genius and can start up your own revolutionary company, you will eventually be working FOR someone else that may or may not know as much as you (think you) do. And, unless you go to work for an ad agency or some similarly "artsy" operation, you WILL be using Windows and other MS products that they are used to and working within operating budgets and other non-glamorous restrictions.

My advice is:
Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash or you will be back in the drive-thru window before you know it.

I like your style . . . it's a good dose of reality.

Among those skills: diplomacy, the ability to listen and learn and deference to their superiors.

I'm seeing that more and more beginners in whichever field seem to have an issue with this. I'd expect that there would be a natural understanding of the chain of command, but sadly, we still get newbies that think it's alright to ignore the instructions of management, and have a real attitude about it to boot.

nunjabusiness said,
Guys, I have hired and fired kids with advanced IT degrees because they came in "knowing everything" and it turned out they had no real-world skills.

Yeah, like MtDewCodeRedFreak :P

Sheesh! Give me a break already. Tired to the max of hearing about the delays and everything else there was in Vista Me (it's no better than Windows Me) and now they're talking this junk already? They've already realized what a POS Vista is, huh?

And with every release Microsoft is loosing it's market share... I don't know why, but it looks like in 10-20 years Microsoft will have maximum only 50 per cent of market share.

OR, alternatively, Microsoft could buy out everything and drive out Apple/Linux with this revolutionary new... whatever (I'm not on their R&D team, thank god).
Anything can happen in 10 - 20 years.
Penguins can take over the earth and we'll all use Linux.

Sorry but i assure we won't be using linux

In fact,everytime windows releases a new OS,it gets more market share ........Davis13lt,doesen't have a clue whats happening with vista,this OS,will dominate in less than 2 years.

EduardValencia said,
Sorry but i assure we won't be using linux

In fact,everytime windows releases a new OS,it gets more market share ........Davis13lt,doesen't have a clue whats happening with vista,this OS,will dominate in less than 2 years.


actually microsoft is constantly losing market share (for quite some time now, not just after vista), but nevermind

Glassed Silver:mac

You think the world is so perfect that everyone can upgrade at a whim. Thats what the machine came with, it runs Vista x86 just fine, no performance hitches at all. There are thousands of 64 bit machines with similar configurations like mine that cannot run Vista x64 well, but still benefit well from the x86 version just fine. Future proofing today with a 64 bit machine does not guarantee you will even be running Windows 7 64-bit on that same machine in 2010.

I have a Dell 8300 P4 3.2 GHz (32-bit) Northwood with 2 GBs of RAM, nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB GPU. I think the decision to still support this system with Windows 7 is very sensible decision on Microsoft's part.

I have a custom built system, AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz (64-bit) with 512 MBs of RAM and it can hardly running Vista x64 properly, it runs Vista x86 just fine though. So my point is, moving to 64 bit now is not guaranteed to future proof your hardware or guarantee it will run software for it very well.

Weird, I remember MS claiming that Windows Server 2008 would be the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides.

Disappointing to see that MS is making a 32-bit version of Windows Seven.

MtDewCodeRedFreak said,
Weird, I remember MS claiming that Windows Server 2008 would be the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides.

Disappointing to see that MS is making a 32-bit version of Windows Seven.

Thanks for proving how obviously new you are to computers and your lack of knowledge when it comes to Microsoft operating systems.

There is a difference between "Client" and "Server". Yes, Microsoft did confirm that Windows "Server" 2008 would be the last 32-bit version of Windows "Server". Future versions of Windows Server including "Windows Server 2008 R2" would be 64 bit only.

Windows Vista is a client operating system, the successor to this client operating system is called Windows 7 was never confirmed as being 64-bit only. In fact Microsoft never fully confirmed Windows 7 until yesterday at MGX, the only information they have given out about it prior to yesterday was, they have no guidance for Enterprise customers except that they are working on it. Paul Thurrott was the one who jumped the gun claiming Windows 7 would be "64-bit only" which has turned out to be wrong as he usually is most of the time. Stop believing that Thurrott compiles Windows, he is only a journalist people!

Please do some research before you make wild accusations that are not true. Windows Vista Team Blog :
On 64-bit and Windows Client:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...ows-client.aspx

And why is it disappointing? How is it affecting you in anyway? Its their property, not yours, they can compile a version for Itanium, Sparc or Power if they please! Its not your decision to decide, if I were you I would stop using PCs and go back to pen and paper. People like you don't understand technology and only live to spread misinformation. I assume you will be disappointed that Office 14 desktop applications will be 32 bit only too.

A lot of individuals would love to put an end to the 32bit paradigm. Consumers put an end to the MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC versions of NT after version 4 (Alpha never even made it out of beta of NT5). It was the people that complained to Microsoft about them wasting their time porting to dead end markets. Did anyone actually buy a version for the PowerPC or Alpha? Microsoft does own the code but it is corporations (free market) that determine what Microsoft does with their code.

The only current port (outside of the Xbox and various other gadgets) that supports the NT kernel is the Itanium. The Windows XP version is not really supported, though you can get an expensive Windows 2003 Servers version if you want (and for some it does serve a purpose, given that it is a better, more efficient architecture, but is very costly). Eventually even the traditional x86 (x86-32) is going to not be able to fill a need.

Example:
Windows XP: it requires 064mb, 256 to actually run and 1024mb to run well.
Windows Vi : it requires 512mb, 2048mb (min x4) and 8192mb (min x16) to run well.

This is a simple ratio that needs to be adjusted for the operating system, but it is likely that you will require more than 4gigs within at least two to three years (well before the next operating system which will not ship in 2009).

bluarash said,
A lot of individuals would love to put an end to the 32bit paradigm. Consumers put an end to the MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC versions of NT after version 4 (Alpha never even made it out of beta of NT5). It was the people that complained to Microsoft about them wasting their time porting to dead end markets. Did anyone actually buy a version for the PowerPC or Alpha? Microsoft does own the code but it is corporations (free market) that determine what Microsoft does with their code.

The only current port (outside of the Xbox and various other gadgets) that supports the NT kernel is the Itanium. The Windows XP version is not really supported, though you can get an expensive Windows 2003 Servers version if you want (and for some it does serve a purpose, given that it is a better, more efficient architecture, but is very costly). Eventually even the traditional x86 (x86-32) is going to not be able to fill a need.

Example:
Windows XP: it requires 064mb, 256 to actually run and 1024mb to run well.
Windows Vi : it requires 512mb, 2048mb (min x4) and 8192mb (min x16) to run well.

This is a simple ratio that needs to be adjusted for the operating system, but it is likely that you will require more than 4gigs within at least two to three years (well before the next operating system which will not ship in 2009).

Thanks for proving you are another newbie in the computer world. I use to run NT 4 (3.1) too, the NT 4 Workstation and Server disc, includes code to run on MIPs, PowerPC, Alpha and i386, you didn't have to buy a separate version. In some ways yes, it was market choice that decided the faith of NT on those architectures. A big reason was cost, the average user in 1996 could not afford an NT based Alpha workstation which ranged in the thousands. And with the growing power of x86 and decreasing price, it just became more logical to stick with it. Also, another reason why it did not do well, applications, developers were not creating enough applications to justify moving to NT on those architectures then. Another reason, the average user did not need 64 bit then and it was targetting specialized markets. People were running Windows 95 with 8 to 16 MBs RAM back in 1996, even corporations were having a hard time trying to decide whether they should adopt 32-bit NT 4.

Itanium was being shaped to be the next generation in desktop computing, but because HP and Intel had problems developing it and Microsoft had a hard time bringing Windows 2000 at beta level for developers to start testing their apps with the architecture it basically failed while x86 continued to gain. The compilers and Windows code for Itanium was not available until mid 2000. Not to mention the problem of application compatibility which NT also faced on MIPs, PowerPC and Alpha.

Microsoft discontinued Windows XP for Itanium systems in January of 2006 because AMD developed a more practical approach by introducing the AMD 64 and Opteron processors which added 64-bit extensions to the x86 resulting in x86-x64 so you could maintain compatibility with full 32-bit applications and run 64 bit applications and devices without any conflict. The initial focus of 64-bit Windows for the past 10 years has been specialized markets: Data Analysis, large Databases, 3D Animation and Rendering. The focus with Vista was to start bringing this to the mainstream on the client side and to eventually over time slowly phase out x86, not kill it with a couple Windows releases which is what a lot of us are implying would happen.

As for your examples, I find them unfounded, RAM requirements come down to what you are doing with the system. If I am running apps like AutoCAD or Maya, I am going to need 1 to 2 GBs of RAM to work efficiently in those apps. But if all I use are Word, OE, IE and WMP, 128 MBs of RAM (256 if use IE 7 and or FF) is enough to even get by on XP. I run XP on 512 MBs of RAM and it runs very well, 1 GB is definitely not required.

Windows Vista for a minimum to run really well needs 1GB of RAM, not the 2 you suggested. My brother has 1.2 GBs of RAM installed in his Dell Inspiron, Core Duo 1.6 GHz with Vista 32-bit (Business) and it runs just fine. I have a Ferrari 5000 with 2GBs of RAM, Vista Ultimate x64, ATI 256 MB GPU, 2GHz AMD Turion x2 and Vista x64 is groggy on it. Why is that? Because drivers are lousy and the industry is just not ready and it will simply take longer for it to get better support (applications and device drivers) and mindshare before we can say, phase out 32-bit forever with the next Windows client release. And I'm sure Microsoft did the market analysis which they probably paid millions to do to justify developing a 32 bit Windows 7 client.

Mr. Dee said,

Thanks for proving how obviously new you are to computers and your lack of knowledge when it comes to Microsoft operating systems.

There is a difference between "Client" and "Server". Yes, Microsoft did confirm that Windows "Server" 2008 would be the last 32-bit version of Windows "Server". Future versions of Windows Server including "Windows Server 2008 R2" would be 64 bit only.

Windows Vista is a client operating system, the successor to this client operating system is called Windows 7 was never confirmed as being 64-bit only. In fact Microsoft never fully confirmed Windows 7 until yesterday at MGX, the only information they have given out about it prior to yesterday was, they have no guidance for Enterprise customers except that they are working on it. Paul Thurrott was the one who jumped the gun claiming Windows 7 would be "64-bit only" which has turned out to be wrong as he usually is most of the time. Stop believing that Thurrott compiles Windows, he is only a journalist people!

Please do some research before you make wild accusations that are not true. Windows Vista Team Blog :
On 64-bit and Windows Client:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...ows-client.aspx

And why is it disappointing? How is it affecting you in anyway? Its their property, not yours, they can compile a version for Itanium, Sparc or Power if they please! Its not your decision to decide, if I were you I would stop using PCs and go back to pen and paper. People like you don't understand technology and only live to spread misinformation. I assume you will be disappointed that Office 14 desktop applications will be 32 bit only too.

Oh my god. How much of a idiot are you for ASS-u-ME'ing all that?

I'm on my last year of college, majoring in IT.

I read somewhere on the Microsoft site last May that Server 2008 would be the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides. Apparently the plans changed or something now.

Please, go flame someone else. Idiot. If I were a mod, I'd have banned you.

Yes, the code was available on a standard CD. So? The market did not want the versions, it wasn't Microsoft. Did you actually see a PowerPC or MIPS system running NT? Ever? I think I saw maybe two prototypes. There were a number of Alpha products available but almost no interest. Hell, Windows NT Magazine actual at one point had a column dedicated to it. You are correct that the Pentium Pro (Pentium II consumer line) made the x86 a real contender. Again, so?

As for adopting NT, no one questioned it. The real problem was getting the hardware to run acceptable and putting up with limitations (i.e. like no true APM and no USB unlike Win95 OSR2). NT 4.0 had very limited multimedia support and did not fully support Direct-X. Wow...

I still stand by my reason why Microsoft dropped Windows XP for the Itanium. There simply was no market for it. It is way to costly and the limited x86 support is crap. Getting back to Alpha, did you actually ever try running x86 applications in FX!32...it was nowhere near as fast as they claimed.

Try actually using a system for once. Load Mathematica or maybe SPSS (and open multiple files) and than come back and tell me if you really can do it in 512mb. Notice, also I never said a stock system of XP needs more than 1024mb. When it was released it required 64, could be run in 128, needed at least 256 and probably would run basic needs in between 256mb and 512mb. You use any complex software or games and the need increases to 1gig.

Windows Vista will run with 512mb but it needs a gig (I have two systems currently running Vista). I also have a MBP, a couple of *nix boxes (Solaris, Linux and OpenBSD) and a box running Win2k3 server. My Linux notebook has 1gig and my desktop has 4gigs (of 8) for x64 Vista. You will still need at least 2gigs to run it well. Drivers are an issue but they have nothing to do with loading gigabyte images, database files from MSSQL server and loading Visual Studio itself. As applications problem more advanced (as allowed by new technologies in Vista) they are going to require more memory. I am not the one who bought a Core Duo (I have a Core 2 Duo and a number of AMD64 systems) so I don't have to justify my purchase and lack of future expansion (to all those in this forum).

I never said that Microsoft will drop x86 support. I just said that there are plenty of people who would love to see it removed. I think your experience is typical for x64 products but I haven't had it (either in Vista or Linux). Sure, there are issues with flash and some cordec in Linux but they are easy to overcome. Vista, does require signed drivers and some drivers are weak but I haven't had two many issues...though I did upgrade the system from 2 to 4gigs. This was mainly because I installed Visual Studio, work with a few VMs and have the SUA installed.

Finally, I am not even going to address the newbie statement, it is childish and adds nothing to the discourse.

bluarash said,
Finally, I am not even going to address the newbie statement, it is childish and adds nothing to the discourse.

Goes to show how idiotic you are for assuming that. Thanks!

I have Visual Studio 2005. Why? Because I need that for my IT programming classes.

I did have Oracle installed on this computer for my Oracle 1 and 2 classes (oh, funny to know I have gotten B's on both) and Oracle *is* a powerful database program. As a matter of fact, for my Oracle 2's big project in place of the final exam I was to make a database of library patrons, books checked out, etc. *and* I have to make a form and report using Oracle's Forms Builder and Reports Builder. I uninstalled it after I completed those courses and the reason is obvious.

I do use all of the Microsoft Office applications, yes even FrontPage, Project, and Visio.

Please do come back with some witty, smart-ass remarks, and I'd be laughing myself to pieces.

Please allow me to suggest that next time, think twice before you post those smart-ass remarks and assumptions (something along the lines of "hmm maybe this guy does know stuff, better not make him mad"). My next computer would be purely 64-bit only when I get out of college with a bachelor's degree in my hand and a full-time job to work hard on. And no, I don't mean internships or part-time jobs in the summertime, because I do have part-time jobs but I have to pay off the tuitions and housing before I can register for classes for the coming year. Don't ask why, okay? If I have a 64-bit PC right now, I can take clear advantage of the 4-GB or more memory by multi-tasking all of those programs I mentioned above, plus maybe a game (like WoW).

Oh, and back to the point, I was merely stating that I did hear about "Server 2008 being the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides" as I have seen those words around on a Microsoft website like last May. It's not there anymore, soo they must have changed the plans. I don't go there that often, considering that I have been so busy outside of the site and the cyberworld. Please sue me for being a bit behind on the news.

Idiot.

Have a nice day.

Please, go flame someone else. Idiot. If I were a mod, I'd have banned you.

Goes to show how idiotic you are for assuming that. Thanks!

Idiot. Have a nice day.

MtDewCodeRedFreak, if anyone should be worried about mods I think it's you. Enough with the name calling.

I did hear about "Server 2008 being the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides

A manager in the server division said "Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit operating system that we'll produce". He did not say anything about clients.

MtDewCodeRedFreak said,

Goes to show how idiotic you are for assuming that. Thanks!

I have Visual Studio 2005. Why? Because I need that for my IT programming classes.

I did have Oracle installed on this computer for my Oracle 1 and 2 classes (oh, funny to know I have gotten B's on both) and Oracle *is* a powerful database program. As a matter of fact, for my Oracle 2's big project in place of the final exam I was to make a database of library patrons, books checked out, etc. *and* I have to make a form and report using Oracle's Forms Builder and Reports Builder. I uninstalled it after I completed those courses and the reason is obvious.

I do use all of the Microsoft Office applications, yes even FrontPage, Project, and Visio.

Please do come back with some witty, smart-ass remarks, and I'd be laughing myself to pieces.

Please allow me to suggest that next time, think twice before you post those smart-ass remarks and assumptions (something along the lines of "hmm maybe this guy does know stuff, better not make him mad"). My next computer would be purely 64-bit only when I get out of college with a bachelor's degree in my hand and a full-time job to work hard on. And no, I don't mean internships or part-time jobs in the summertime, because I do have part-time jobs but I have to pay off the tuitions and housing before I can register for classes for the coming year. Don't ask why, okay? If I have a 64-bit PC right now, I can take clear advantage of the 4-GB or more memory by multi-tasking all of those programs I mentioned above, plus maybe a game (like WoW).

Oh, and back to the point, I was merely stating that I did hear about "Server 2008 being the last 32-bit OS, both client and server sides" as I have seen those words around on a Microsoft website like last May. It's not there anymore, soo they must have changed the plans. I don't go there that often, considering that I have been so busy outside of the site and the cyberworld. Please sue me for being a bit behind on the news.

Idiot.

Have a nice day.

You are a real embarrassment to Information Technology (IT) and Neowin.net.

Mr. Dee said,
You are a real embarrassment to Information Technology (IT) and Neowin.net.

I think you both are, especially since I don't think bluarash was even talking about MtDewCodeRedFreak with the "newbie statement"...

Ah well, jumping out of the sandpit and back into civilised society...
I've had some pretty nasty issues with every x64 OS I've tried (both XP x64 and Vista x64, although I freely admit I only tried the x64 version during the RCs). Drivers failed - admittedly not really MS's fault, but some kind of compatibility layer that worked would be nice.
As I mentioned above, on XP x64 games started going at double their normal speed, then half... Very unnerving! :laugh:

If a decent, solid, x64 OS with decent driver and software support comes out (maybe Vista's got better since the RCs, but I wouldn't bet much on it) then perhaps 32-bit support could safely be dropped in W7 or probably W8. But until then, whether it's XP, Vista, Linux or anything else, I'll be using the 32-bit version - because it's tried, tested and just works.


What??? Microsoft is working on the next version of Windows?? Wow, and here I thought MS was gonna pack it in after Vista and leave most of the world without a computing solution.

I guess those who dont even know the abc of coding or how a new image is built should stfu. Do you know how much testing is required before things are okayed, like manual testing,automation,regression scripts, stress test. I work in the number1 networking company and each time I do a code change I have to see I dont step on something else only to know 2 weeks later something is broken or a flaw has been inserted.
And as for those who say why they preanounce such things, every company does it. I havent seen a single IT project be it my current company or others I have worked for to get things out on time.

The Beta? They even don't have Alpha version, they are just trying to put every idea together firstly. But in 1.5-2 years there definitely will be the first release of this OS.

just call bill gates or steve ballmer, they will help you out... oh you don't know them? that's bad, you can't get to test it NOW then...
let alone it being not in beta stage... kinda far from alpha actually too

Glassed Silver:mac

Izlude said,
NO MORE REGISTRY! NO MORE REGISTRY! PROTEST WITH ME! NO MORE REGISTRY!

So you want to make it impossible for the thousands of programs that use the registry in existance to no longer work?

neufuse said,

So you want to make it impossible for the thousands of programs that use the registry in existance to no longer work?


It would be called virtualizing the registry. It would be nice if the registry settings for each app were virtualized in to the application folder...a little self contained world and cleanup would be a snap.

MrCobra said,

It would be called virtualizing the registry. It would be nice if the registry settings for each app were virtualized in to the application folder...a little self contained world and cleanup would be a snap.

According to Wikipedia, there may be sandbox support in Windows Vienna, a sandbox might virtualize the registry for you.

What's wrong with the registry?

it's much faster to store/read settings in the registry than it is to deal with config files.

Registered components and installer data has to go somewhere.

So, enlighten me. When two or more applications need to share settings/data, but don't need a full blown database, how are they to share this infomation without the registry?

This is a real question, not some flip remark. I've been a professional tech for over 20 years and so many apps share data this way. But if there is another idea I'm willing to hear it.

Thanks,
James Rose
New York City

Izlude said,
NO MORE REGISTRY! NO MORE REGISTRY! PROTEST WITH ME! NO MORE REGISTRY!

tell me what's wrong with the registry

XerXis said,

tell me what's wrong with the registry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Criticisms

LargeLarry said,
Windows Seven is going to be another failure, I'm waiting for Windows Eight. :D

I hope you are joking right now, but at the same time, it would be a lame joke.

How is Vista doubling the entire Mac OS X user base in 3 months failure? Microsoft had revenues of 51 billion dollars in the quarter ending March, thanks to strong penetration of Vista and Office 2007 including renewals for Licensing 6.0 and more deployments of Vista in Corporations and preloaded on new PCs. Analyst say Vista is around 60 million right now. And even if Windows XP is still being deployed widely, its still a win-win for Microsoft.

Your idea of failure is really whack!

I think they should stop putting out different editions and just make the whole OS modular so everyone can just purchase a base editions and then add the modules (like Networking, Entertainment, Office, etc.) on top of it.

Windows XP Home is a joke, and so are most Vista editions. Give the users a base OS, and then let them choose what to pay for to add on top of that because the bigger and more varied an OS gets, the harder it is to make a choice, esp. if there are many editions.

I'd say sell the licence with various numbers of 'points' attached, and at *install-time*, or potentially even *run-time* you can choose how to spend them on optional features. If you're building a machine which needs BitLocker but will only have anemic integrated video, you don't also need Aero and Media Centre.

This would also eliminate some uncertainty with features that customers may not know they need, like sophisticated networking features.

GEIST said,
I think they should stop putting out different editions and just make the whole OS modular so everyone can just purchase a base editions and then add the modules (like Networking, Entertainment, Office, etc.) on top of it.

I would love to have just the kernel, audio, video, networking and everything else be optional.

GEIST said,
I think they should stop putting out different editions and just make the whole OS modular so everyone can just purchase a base editions and then add the modules (like Networking, Entertainment, Office, etc.) on top of it.

Windows XP Home is a joke, and so are most Vista editions. Give the users a base OS, and then let them choose what to pay for to add on top of that because the bigger and more varied an OS gets, the harder it is to make a choice, esp. if there are many editions.

most people don't even know the difference between office and windows (really) how would they be able to choose what they want

I don't see why they pre-announce this stuff so far in advance.

It only gives ammunition to critics when the date inevitably slips.

I agree, and it always does change. They took too long on Vista and the end results are that it's still not "completed" when talking with a good portion of people who've tried it or continue to use it. They dumped a lot of features that should have been included. Now they are talking about this new OS, hmm good for them I guess..

Fred Derf said,
I don't see why they pre-announce this stuff so far in advance.

They had to announce it because of Vista. People were asking "THIS is it!?"

In my opinion by 2010 MS will have lost a bit more market share and in turn will allow OEM's and other hardware vendors to pressure MS into offering a 64bit OS to force people to upgrade. I could be wrong but i think thats what will happen.

Oh come on, it would be very ignorant to think that microsoft won't lose any market share in the next 3 three years.

Enough with legacy support!!! there is no point for MS to develop 32bit extensions for W7 since vista already here.

MS... move forward, new kernel, new techs, new FILE SYSTEM, new driver code, NEW EVERYTHING!

Beastage said,
Enough with legacy support!!! there is no point for MS to develop 32bit extensions for W7 since vista already here.

MS... move forward, new kernel, new techs, new FILE SYSTEM, new driver code, NEW EVERYTHING!


If MS does move to a totally new tech then we will hear even more bitching from those who bitched about vista breaking things when its tech was changed the way it was....


sirghost said,

If MS does move to a totally new tech then we will hear even more bitching from those who bitched about vista breaking things when its tech was changed the way it was....

Not if MS comes right away and says this is how it going to be, 3/5 years to prepare is long enough

Beastage said,
Enough with legacy support!!! there is no point for MS to develop 32bit extensions for W7 since vista already here.

MS... move forward, new kernel, new techs, new FILE SYSTEM, new driver code, NEW EVERYTHING!

that would be a disaster, first of all, backward compatibility would be broken. People would go crazy about having to buy all their software again.

Secondly, why would you throw away your entire (stable) codebase and start all over again. There's nothing fundamently wrong with NTFS

XerXis said,

that would be a disaster, first of all, backward compatibility would be broken. People would go crazy about having to buy all their software again.

Secondly, why would you throw away your entire (stable) codebase and start all over again. There's nothing fundamently wrong with NTFS

Backwards compatibility is ALL Microsoft really has.

If you make purchase decisions in a vaccuum, compatibility-wise, MacOS and Linux can present some very attractive looks. But if you have a bunch of hardware with Windows-only drivers, and a bunch of Windows software to either use or interchange with, that's the value dropoff.

Hak Foo said,

Backwards compatibility is ALL Microsoft really has.

If you make purchase decisions in a vaccuum, compatibility-wise, MacOS and Linux can present some very attractive looks. But if you have a bunch of hardware with Windows-only drivers, and a bunch of Windows software to either use or interchange with, that's the value dropoff.

Hence the reason I always say - if it weren't for hardware and software compatibility, no one would be running.

With that being said, I'd love to see Microsoft embrace Solaris for the core of their operating system, provide compatibility through a Virtual Machine and provide a driver shim so that driver writers won't need to completely re-write their drivers.

XerXis said,

that would be a disaster, first of all, backward compatibility would be broken. People would go crazy about having to buy all their software again.

Secondly, why would you throw away your entire (stable) codebase and start all over again. There's nothing fundamently wrong with NTFS

right ... troll!

I think you took this wrong. Or at least they didn't explain it this way in the news part. Vienna is mainstream 64bit support and I think will only have a SAL version that is 32bit.

Kinda like Exchange Server 2007. Demo = 32bit / 64bit, Retail 64bit only, OEM 64bit only, software assurance 32bit/64bit. Theres a catch with this. MS will only release 64bit SP for Exchange. Only 32bit SPs for exchange 2007 will be for management tools.

Office 2007 was roadmarked as the last 32bit full release to the public from MS.

So i'm going to make a gamble on this but i'm going to say you might only beable to get Windows Enterprise / Biz in 32bit if they do it for the public.

"Stick with Windows!! OK, we under delivered this time, but if you move away you'll miss all the exciting feature of our next OS!!"
--MS, at any of their OS releases

:cheeky:

Older hardware by todays standards will be approaching "ancient" hardware by the time Windows 7 is released.

I'm not saying that everyone has to have the latest and greatest 64-bit hardware to run Vienna (low end entry level models would be fine), as long as the vast majority of people are on that platform.

Its about being future proofed to make any further transitions a lot easier (and potentially cheaper) in the long run.

As another example, look at the proposed "analogue switch off" which is coming in the next couple of years. No more analogue TV signals, everything will be digital and if you dont have a digital tv you lose out. Its a forced, timetabled. staggered upgrade of hardware which people will have to adhere to if they wish to watch television. Those who dont make the switch will be "alienated" as you say. Big deal, play some violins, and move onto the next issue.

Now notice I'm not saying that you have to have a 65" 1080p ultra powerful HD television, just as long as its capable of receiving digital television. The same is true with my view point on moving people onto 64 bit computing and away from 32 bit.

Like most things in life, its a cultural battle more importantly, people dont like change and wont do something just because there are systems in place. They need to be made to do certain things which in the long run will benefit them. Obviously the vast majority of home users will neither care, or be all that bothered by the type of processor in their PC as long as it runs their applications without crashing, and that it looks pretty they are happy.

For the rest of us, academic institutions, businesses, enthusiasts etc... we will be more clued up and can better prepare for what is (and should be) coming.

Why alienate those with older hardware by requiring as a minimum a 64-bit system just to install the OS?

To enthusiasts, last generation 32-bit Pentium 4's or Athlon XP's might not have a ton of power for the latest games, but it's plenty fast for those who use their computer for simple productivity tasks.

32-bit pervasive computing is long from being dead yet, and I think Microsoft realizes that.

You do realise that we are talking about 3 years time right? 64-bit processors are in widespread use now. Anyone not having a 64-bit processor in 3 years time will likely be too underpowered to run even a 32-bit version of that new version of windows.

Its the 32bit edition thats got me annoyed.

Why do they need to release such a version, at the turn of a new decade, by which time most people should be on 64-bit hardware, and 32 bit being relegated to the realms of history.

If Vienna is 32bit compatible and is scheduled for 2010 (2011), then that means we'll have the 32 bit era until at least 2015 (until Windows 8 is released), much too long in my opinion.

32 bit computing has had its day, and the industry as a whole needs to move on. By 2010 it wont be so much of a "forced upgrade", as computing is moving to 64 bit all the time now, and 3 more years should be plenty of time for all manufacturers to ready 64-bit drivers for all their hardware.

I'm the kind of person who believes having an option in any decision in life is preferable to being told there is only one way to do something, but in certain cases (for the greater good) that option should be removed as it does not benefit anyone.

I hope that Microsoft decide to reverse their decision to have a 32 bit version of Vienna, as in the long run it will benefit everyone.

Well, see, it's not quite cut and dry with 32 vs 64 bit. Not a lot of people benefit from 64 bit computing, in fact, the majority of programs out there run slower (and are larger) when compiled for a 64 bit processor. So although 64 bit processing is indeed, the next thing, it's a hard sell to the majority of customers who don't need it. 64 bit is meant for processing very large, or very precise numbers, the realm of physics simulations and cryptography.

The only cryptography or floating point math that the average business user will probably execute on their computer is to decompress a file or encrypted email. Meanwhile, they're getting these veritable four lane highways in their chips to handle integers that (statistically) are more likely to be a value smaller than 100 (a number that takes less than 16 bits in a register to hold.) The majority of mathematics that your computer is preforming any given cycle is counting to an arbitrary number and then using event to break a loop. You don't need 64 bits to do

for (i=0; i<10; i++) {}

I'd expect that a big part of a continuing 32-bit release will be for hardware support.

It seems like they're getting pretty absurd with the 64-bit drivers; notably, the all-but-requirement of signed drivers. Apparently XP-64 would just whine "These are unsigned", but Vista-64 flat out won't install 'em without tweaking (were there huge problems with people getting fooled into installing unsigned drivers? Not that I know of. And I doubt requiring signatures will prevent StarForce from being installed).

I looked into it, and several of my favourite peripherals can be supported 32-bit, but not 64-bit. For me, it's a matter of replacing $150 in gear. For some business that has a propriatery doohickey, it could be 100 times that or more.

IMO, the better approach would have been some sort of "penalty-box" way of handling 32-bit drivers, even with a performance hit, because there are too many good pieces of hardware that will be abandoned otherwise.

As for small integers, the whole point of x86-64 is that it *is* x86 still-- if you want to use 8-bit wide register components, well, AL and AH are still available. Nobody forces you to write every operation 64-bit-wide.

Palin88 said,
Well, see, it's not quite cut and dry with 32 vs 64 bit. Not a lot of people benefit from 64 bit computing, in fact, the majority of programs out there run slower (and are larger) when compiled for a 64 bit processor. So although 64 bit processing is indeed, the next thing, it's a hard sell to the majority of customers who don't need it. 64 bit is meant for processing very large, or very precise numbers, the realm of physics simulations and cryptography.

The only cryptography or floating point math that the average business user will probably execute on their computer is to decompress a file or encrypted email. Meanwhile, they're getting these veritable four lane highways in their chips to handle integers that (statistically) are more likely to be a value smaller than 100 (a number that takes less than 16 bits in a register to hold.) The majority of mathematics that your computer is preforming any given cycle is counting to an arbitrary number and then using event to break a loop. You don't need 64 bits to do

for (i=0; i<10; i++) {}

I agree with this.

Windows XP x64 has been out for quite a while, and _still_ the majority of programs either won't work on it, or don't work as well as their 32bit counterparts.

Unfortunately Windows Vista x64 won't install drivers if they are not signed, and is simply a HUGE waste of resources. Not everyone today has 2-3 gigs of ram or next generation processors to power it.

Windows XP x86 seems to still be the "go to" OS if you want full compatibility.

Note: I prefer Windows XP x64, but sadly almost everything I run is 32 bit.

" the majority of programs either won't work on it"

Define majority. I used XP x64 a year or so ago before my full switch to Vista, and I encountered very few problems.

MioTheGreat said,
" the majority of programs either won't work on it"

Define majority. I used XP x64 a year or so ago before my full switch to Vista, and I encountered very few problems.


I had some pretty bad issues (some I could overcome, others I couldn't).
When Counter-Strike Source started going at double speed (in online games, no less) I figured I preferred the 32-bit versions of XP. (For the record, it wasn't just double-speed - it was sometimes half-speed too )

I want Windows XP, yep... Windows XP, why would I want another OS when Windows XP is perfect for my need ? I only hope they release Windows XP. Oops, they already did. :P

They did say that about Windows 98. When XP was released for the first half a year no one seemed to even know that it was released. I remember stopping at (gasp...Walmart) on the night it was released and checking with them if they had a copy. The sales person in the tech department had no idea what XP was. He, however, did manage to find a copy.

As for Windows 98 users, many of them not all believe that the Win9x kernel had better development for it at the time, but that it was much more stable than XP. They mostly complained about not being able to play the latest games, it took too much space, the design was vastly different (Luna), you had to activate it and Windows 98 was (good enough). Many individuals I talked to complained that Win98se was the peak of Microsoft design. If individuals did have to move they were planning on switching to Redhat.

I think very little changes. Within a year almost all of those who claim to never switch from XP will be running Vista. Very few people are going to move to Linux (sorry Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu fans). I really like Linux too (at least for servers) and it is developed enough for the desktop (has been since at least 2004), the problem is that no one seems to have an interest.

Finally, there is Apple. I do agree they are a threat, however, my experience is that most of the interest is in the hardware and not OS X (a lot of individuals are spending a lot of time in Bootcamp and the various VMs).

bluarash said,
They did say that about Windows 98. When XP was released for the first half a year no one seemed to even know that it was released. I remember stopping at (gasp...Walmart) on the night it was released and checking with them if they had a copy. The sales person in the tech department had no idea what XP was. He, however, did manage to find a copy.

As for Windows 98 users, many of them not all believe that the Win9x kernel had better development for it at the time, but that it was much more stable than XP. They mostly complained about not being able to play the latest games, it took too much space, the design was vastly different (Luna), you had to activate it and Windows 98 was (good enough). Many individuals I talked to complained that Win98se was the peak of Microsoft design. If individuals did have to move they were planning on switching to Redhat.

I think very little changes. Within a year almost all of those who claim to never switch from XP will be running Vista. Very few people are going to move to Linux (sorry Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu fans). I really like Linux too (at least for servers) and it is developed enough for the desktop (has been since at least 2004), the problem is that no one seems to have an interest.

Finally, there is Apple. I do agree they are a threat, however, my experience is that most of the interest is in the hardware and not OS X (a lot of individuals are spending a lot of time in Bootcamp and the various VMs).


I agree 110%

This has been anything but my experience (Vista is not significantly slower). With glass enable and the hard disk properly optimized I have little problems with interface slow down or copying files between volumes (photography and video media).

It is somewhat buggy, but I remember the early days of XP (and for that matter NT4 and Win2k). I find the code to actually be more stable and usable than NT4, NT5, and NT5.1 when they were first released.

What applications are you having problems with (audio, video, gaming)? The only real problem that I have is a lack of drivers (mostly for scanners and printers), though this is improving.

BriFi said,
XP is turbo compared to Vista, even on newer dual core systems.
Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).

Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter.

TCLN Ryster said,
Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).

Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter.

Of course personal experience, used vista on both single and dual. I'm sure it will get better.

TCLN Ryster said,
Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).

Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter.

It's not that Vista gets better, it's that the support for XP goes to ****. Try playing next-gen games on Win98 or Windows 2000 and you'll see. Even top notch DX8 games flounder on those system for that reason.

Vista will get "better" only because manufacturers will neglect XP to push sales of new products. It's a shameful game that they just love to play to continue making profits. I don't see how Word 2007 writes documents any faster or better than Word 97, yet it uses up 2-20x more RAM. That's robbery!

For those who say "Don't buy a Windows machine?" I don't anymore.

Why play a next generation game on Win98 (with Win2k you might have a point)? What is wrong with shifting focus on older products to newer ones (this is basically how profit is made)? There really is not much of a market for enterprise level support for the home server (i.e. more mature, stable software). People generally want flash and cutting edge stuff...rather than something that just works and is relatively bug free.

If the market demanded extended support for Microsoft products I am sure that they would be more than willing ($1200 a seat, per year can do wonders). We of course know that this is not going to happen. Individual users simply do not pay for subscription maintenance, they want a new products with more buggy features (note: I am not talking about Vista).

As for Word 97 and Word 2007, there are a number of enhancements. Open up the products side by side and tell me if you don't notice a difference. If you don't want to continue paying the so-called "Microsoft tax" than load a copy of OpenOffice or use Cygwin to install KDE and K-Office. There is always WordPerfect (many legal office still use it).

If you want really light, I would suggest Vi. It is a create editor. If you want a user UI enhancement load Cream. You would be surprised how well it runs on pretty much everything (Windows, OS X, Unix, Linux and almost everything else).

bluarash said,
Why play a next generation game on Win98 (with Win2k you might have a point)? What is wrong with shifting focus on older products to newer ones (this is basically how profit is made)?
The answer is in the first sentence of the previous post. Vista is slower and it does not get better. It may appear to get better because support for XP gets worse.

As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
I am really looking forward to what is in store.
And no i am not a "Fanboy" i use linux for my servers, not windows

Doing something right? Not really - at least nothing that has investors pulling out party hats and balloons.

MS is in the position it is today due to licensing decisions made many, many moons ago. Nearly Every PC sold already has Windows installed.

The truly interesting and inspirational moves are being made by the competition. And the next great tech powerhouse will be Apple + Google.

LTD said,
Doing something right? Not really - at least nothing that has investors pulling out party hats and balloons.

MS is in the position it is today due to licensing decisions made many, many moons ago. Nearly Every PC sold already has Windows installed.

The truly interesting and inspirational moves are being made by the competition. And the next great tech powerhouse will be Apple + Google.

...or whoever designed whatever you've been smoking...

betadan said,
As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.

It's called bribery, and extortion.

It's all about business, not quality with MS. MS is ruthless, and they grabbed hold of the market before the rest of the industry realized what MS was up to. MS's first victim was IBM, and they haven't stopped victimizing the industry and customers ever since.

toadeater said,

It's called bribery, and extortion.

It's all about business, not quality with MS. MS is ruthless, and they grabbed hold of the market before the rest of the industry realized what MS was up to. MS's first victim was IBM, and they haven't stopped victimizing the industry and customers ever since.

Who's to blame for that? customers who keep coming back again and again - some sort of twisted 'battered end users syndrome, akin to the 'battered wifes syndrome'?

Instead of blaming Microsoft, take a stand and don't promote their products and don't use their products. I don't use Windows because I *CHOOSE* not to. Microsoft can market to me till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing.

Its time the average user stopped being a sheep, stopped blaming everyone else for the decisions they made when purchasing a PC.

kaiwai said,
Who's to blame for that? customers who keep coming back again and again - some sort of twisted 'battered end users syndrome, akin to the 'battered wifes syndrome'?

Instead of blaming Microsoft, take a stand and don't promote their products and don't use their products. I don't use Windows because I *CHOOSE* not to. Microsoft can market to me till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing.

Its time the average user stopped being a sheep, stopped blaming everyone else for the decisions they made when purchasing a PC.

The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...

As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).

Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years.

betadan said,
As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
I am really looking forward to what is in store.
And no i am not a "Fanboy" i use linux for my servers, not windows

IMO, the thing they're doing right is mainly business and marketing. And in the real world, you can program the electronic equivalent of a turd and still sell a load of copies with some clever marketing (and licensing). On the technical side, there really is a lot they need to get sorted. But still, Microsoft's has good business skills - they are undeniably doing a good job of holding onto users, and this is supplemented by the shortcomings of alternative operating systems.

I use Windows XP. It often irritates me. But I intend to continue using it for the forseeable future - some things simply can't be done well on other OSes, and in my case, the two main things are gaming and game development. So I'm locked in. I've tried Ubuntu (with WINE/Cedega), and I've played with OS X for a few minutes, and I'm very impressed with both. But they just don't meet my requirements. If things were different, e.g. if I were a console gamer and I didn't develop PC games, I'd certainly be typing this on a Ubuntu system.

The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...

As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).

Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years.

And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?

Microsoft started off as a small company and worked their butts off to get to a point where they are today. Let's not forget that. They started of with DOS, then Windows 3.0, then Windows 3.11 for Workgroups etc etc. All of these were revolutionary and gave businesses something nobody else would give them. This led to huge Windows support through custom applications and overall marketshare. There are no licensing agreements that last forever. You can't FORCE someone to use the operating system. The reason everyone is using it is because Microsoft keeps building a better version and more developer supported version of WIndows every time. Let's not forget that.

As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).

Again, your conclusion is flawed. Manufacturers are not STRONG ARMED, what kind of a stupid "conspiracy theory" is that. They go with Windows because they make money out of it, they are well supported and there's STILL absolutely no competition in the OS arean that can give a user an alternative.

You see, take a look at OSX. It's nicely designed OS. and it can run Windows applications but it also has a bunch of alternative applications to their windows counterparts. So what's the problem here? Problem is that Apple wants to keep their circle closed and make money on hardware. Again, who's problem is that? It's not Microsoft strong arming anyone, it's Apple who doesn't want to come out openly on the market with their operating system that could very WELL run on any x86 machine and be a good competition to Windows.

What you fail to see is that Microsoft doesn't just SLAP the OS together. It's not just "oh let's code this out, slap nice packaging and that's where are job ends" thing. They keep SUPPORTING developers, businesses and others ON A DAILY BASIS. Do you know how much money, time, workforce this takes away? This is the reason why you don't have alternatives to Windows. Not because someone can't program a nicer looking OS (OSX for example) but they just DON'T HAVE the power to follow through on that OS on a larger scale.

So please, next time, try to turn your brain ON, instead of just SLAMMING Microsoft. In capitalistic and open market, the power of better product and support wins customers and business. Not strong arming deals. If this was the case Microsoft would be in SERIOUS legal trouble as you can't hide something like this, especially when you hold 90% of the market.

MrCobra said,

The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...

As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).

Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years.

But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business - I chose to go and download a copy of Solaris x86 and install it on my laptop. Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.

Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server! I'm not kidding you, just as a mail server! christ, if you're going to do that, you might as well use sendmail and friends - but people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity.

kaiwai said,
But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business

Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?
kaiwai said,
Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.

You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?
kaiwai said,
Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server!

Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.
kaiwai said,
people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity.

Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault?

Boz said,
And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?

Yes, you can uninstall Windows and install Linux. Except MS have already got the money for whatever version of Windows your PC came with. This is the problem - even if you don't want to use Windows, you're being essentially forced to buy it because you can't get a machine without it (OK, you can - but they're much harder to find).

Esvandiary said,

Yes, you can uninstall Windows and install Linux. Except MS have already got the money for whatever version of Windows your PC came with. This is the problem - even if you don't want to use Windows, you're being essentially forced to buy it because you can't get a machine without it (OK, you can - but they're much harder to find).

Isn't Dell beginning to offer PC's with linux? Isn't that a choice too. That would diffuse your 'hard to find' argument.

Boz said,

And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?

THAT conclusion is not flawed. If you really want to know how nice they played then go read the court transcripts where it was found that they did indeed stong arm OEMs in to pushing Windows. The strong armed tactics were so bad that it pushed some OS makers out of business.

So please, next time, try to turn your brain ON, instead of just SLAMMING Microsoft. In capitalistic and open market, the power of better product and support wins customers and business. Not strong arming deals. If this was the case Microsoft would be in SERIOUS legal trouble as you can't hide something like this, especially when you hold 90% of the market.

I suggest you turn YOUR brain on and do a little reading on the lawsuits that MS has faced over the years and then come back and try to reply.

RealFduch said,

Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?

You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?

Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.

Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault?

You jumped ship on the OS NAZI bandwagon just because you're a tool.

End of story I guess.

RealFduch said,

Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?

You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?

Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.

Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault?

You can either loss 250$ by buying a DELL with Ubuntu on it or just keep it with Windows Vista. Yeah, you've should read the article that says that Dell's going to sell their computers with Ubuntu on them, more precisely the part that says that Vista computers have free stuff on them, such as additional memory and a bigger HDD.

Oh, so being a "dumb fool" or a "stipid" equals buying a cheaper computer because companies such as Dell sell more expensive computers with a FLOSS Os which, instead of promoting FLOSS they're DESTROYING it.

[Conclusion] Get some common sense.

MrCobra said,
THAT conclusion is not flawed. If you really want to know how nice they played then go read the court transcripts where it was found that they did indeed stong arm OEMs in to pushing Windows. The strong armed tactics were so bad that it pushed some OS makers out of business.

Please don't post "oh look up court documents" crap and give me your sources. What OS manufacturers did Microsoft put out of business. You are not convincing anyone by stating things without a shred of backup.

I have been following the scene for much longer then you might think as I'm 31 and I've been working on 286 computers and since Microsoft pretty much started growing. I've never heard that they were in a lawsuit for strong-arming deals and that they put out other OS businesses because of it.

Please enlighten me and provide your "facts".

jwjw1 said,
sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)

Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years...

neufuse said,

Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years...

honestly i dont think we "need" new os's every 2-3 years... im thinking about 1 time per 5 years sounds about right.... cause i think from windows xp on forward we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works.... vista is more or less just a more bloated version of windows xp which needs more ram and for what? maybe better auto-hardware detection? ... i just dont get it.

but when is all said and done vista will probably be the standard in a year or so.

ThaCrip said,

honestly i dont think we "need" new os's every 2-3 years... im thinking about 1 time per 5 years sounds about right.... cause i think from windows xp on forward we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works.... vista is more or less just a more bloated version of windows xp which needs more ram and for what? maybe better auto-hardware detection? ... i just dont get it.

but when is all said and done vista will probably be the standard in a year or so.

And werent we part of the group that bitched that microsoft took 5+ years to do vista and bitched that they delayed it????

sirghost said,

And werent we part of the group that bitched that microsoft took 5+ years to do vista and bitched that they delayed it????

You just can not win... If you get one every other year like Apple its "evolution".. 2-3 yrs with MS its "incomplete and rushed"... 5yrs with MS its "where is it?" and every year with Linux its "yay more bug fixes!" you just can't win

ThaCrip said,
we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works....

Typewriters were stable, reliable and just worked but somebody had to come out and make computers. DOS or other command line Operating Systems were stable, reliable and worked but someone, arguably MS, Xerox or Apple made GUI.

The truth is that there is always room for improvement and innovation. What kind of world would we live in if people just stopped creating things because "stuff just works".

I'm not saying Vista is innovative, on the contrary, Vista has some cool features but I agree with the overall tone of this thread that Vista is not the next great OS.

neufuse said,
You just can not win... If you get one every other year like Apple its "evolution".. 2-3 yrs with MS its "incomplete and rushed"... 5yrs with MS its "where is it?" and every year with Linux its "yay more bug fixes!" you just can't win

After getting burned time-and-time again with 'revolutionary' products (i.e.: 3.1 vs 3.11, BOB, ME, etc.) many of us just want a good solid platform that works. Remember that an OS is nothing more than a tool (it's not a contest or a religion). Vista started out as a good idea but after MS slashed the features that meant anything to many of us, it's just a minor upgrade that is not worth the costs. XP works fine for most users and the vast majority of business users have absolutely no reason to switch to Vista. Just about everyone I talk to in corp industries are not going to touch Vista until at least SP1 or SP2. There is really no major ROI for switching (hardware/software upgrade costs, training, security and compatibility issues, etc). So most of us might as well wait for the next version of Windows to see if it will be revolutionary to mainstream and business users (not hobbyists).