Windows 7 Official Public Beta


Recommended Posts

Unimatrix Xero

forgive me for being n00bish now but with different posts saying different dats ive got mixed up, the keynote is today right? so does this mean that Beta 1 is due today (the 7th) or are we having to wait?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Snowl

If its going to be delivered at the keynote today, then yes, yes it is due today.

Nah !

proof ?

Driver incompatibility?

Whats your proof that hes wrong ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
danisflying527

It will probably release just after the keynote some time, Hooray

I think the keynote is about 6:30 right

Link to post
Share on other sites
Denholm
What time is the keynote meant to start?

6:30 PM - Jan 7th PST - I'm pretty sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
George P

Lots of reviews have been using Vista x64 when benchmarking newer gfx cards with different games. And really, I could be wrong, but even with x64 the CPU is still x86, I don't think Windows is actually emulating everything like some might think it is. Since the hardware can do 32bit or 64bit, it's a simple switch that needs to be done I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
atleeit
People can have both systems, choice is a good thing. However, the transition will happen some time and x86 cleary isn't the future, unless you want to carry on using 3 GB RAM forever ;)

You OC your Q6600 to 3.6Ghz? And you get 5.8 Rating?

My specs:

f41emw.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
atleeit

What if some smart individual designs a 32bit structure that can use more then 4GB, would 64bit disappear?

Link to post
Share on other sites
iamwhoiam
Sorry to break it to you but unless manufacturers make x64 drivers 100% compatible with x64 and most programs avalible on the market compatible x64 only wont be an option, and there are still x86 processors out there and you still need x86 to create binarys for x64 so x64 would be a disaster, so umm dont compare x86 with x64

Every single piece of software that I use on x64 works perfectly.

That little part in bold up there...a bit uhm, well, yeah. :rolleyes: :blink: I hope you meant to say "you still need x64 to create binaries for x64" Either way, both statements are false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ci7
What if some smart individual designs a 32bit structure that can use more then 4GB, would 64bit disappear?

impossible it is by design , unless using P.A.E. which has special requirement

32bit = 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
wrack
What if some smart individual designs a 32bit structure that can use more then 4GB, would 64bit disappear?

Unless BIT can store more than 1 and 0 like QBIT with Quantum computing, 32bit is going down pal :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamesclarke555
You OC your Q6600 to 3.6Ghz? And you get 5.8 Rating?

I wish :)

It's only an E6600 (Dual Core) running at 3.20 GHz (it thinks I'm running a 9 multiplier).

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomwarren
Connect works, i'm logged in :) no Windows 7 :p

Also 7015.0.081218-1724 does not seem right.

6.1.7013.0 was built 081220-1600 - So how can Build 7015 be built before 7013 am i making sense?

So Build 7015 is 18th Dec 08

And Build 7013 is 20th Dec 08

See where i'm coming from?

v6.1.7003 was 01/12/08

v6.1.7004 was 03/12/08

v6.1.7012 was 15/12/08

7003 was not the 1st, 7004 was not the 3rd. Unless you're talking about some sub labs. I am talking about WinMain builds. And I never post information that's wrong.

Edited by creamhackered
Link to post
Share on other sites
atleeit
7003 was not the 1st, 7004 was not the 3rd. Unless you're talking about some sub labs. I am talking about WinMain builds. And I never post information that's wrong.

3 and 12 was a WinMain :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomwarren
3 and 12 was a WinMain :D

Yeah and as I stated, 3 was not compiled on 1st December. Do you really think 12 was compiled on Saturday 20th December? That's wrong as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ci7
Lots of reviews have been using Vista x64 when benchmarking newer gfx cards with different games. And really, I could be wrong, but even with x64 the CPU is still x86, I don't think Windows is actually emulating everything like some might think it is. Since the hardware can do 32bit or 64bit, it's a simple switch that needs to be done I believe.

the only case that there are emulation for 32bit softwares is using the windows IA64(intel itanium 64) edition

it is not combitable with x86 ,32bit software run with performance plenty(slowdown) by doing so .

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomwarren
You guys arguing about build numbers kill me.

haha sorry :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Si
Sorry, my bad. I mean, for x86 programs to work on x64 :

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/...22/9244582.aspx

This also means that it is slower, as it is emulation.

If I remember rightly (it's been a while since I read up on this), the 'emulation' that we are talking about here is not the same kind of emulation that you will find in the Itanium (i64) builds of Windows.

On Itanium, the processor is physically unable to run x86 code, so the WOW64 emulator completely translates the code to Itanium compatible instructions and passes these to the CPU. This is like running the PowerPC versions of Linux inside PearPC on an x86 machine (or in fact games console emulators like SNES). Complete emulation like this will obviously impact performance.

On x86-64 (x64), the WOW64 'emulator' simply redirects all calls from 32 bit application to the system registry and folder locations into a seperate area, so that the 32 bit apps cannot conflict in any way with the 64 bit apps. CPU instructions on this platform however, are not emulated, and are passed directly to the CPU, as every x64 compatible processor is capable of natively running x86. In this case, there is no slow down as there is no CPU emulation.

It seems there is a lot of confusion when people talk about x86-64 and 64-bit, as Itanium does tend to get involved.

It is possible that I am also very confused, so if anyone knows better please post :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ci7
If I remember rightly (it's been a while since I read up on this), the 'emulation' that we are talking about here is not the same kind of emulation that you will find in the Itanium (i64) builds of Windows.

On Itanium, the processor is physically unable to run x86 code, so the WOW64 emulator completely translates the code to Itanium compatible instructions and passes these to the CPU. This is like running the PowerPC versions of Linux inside PearPC on an x86 machine (or in fact games console emulators like SNES). Complete emulation like this will obviously impact performance.

On x86-64 (x64), the WOW64 'emulator' simply redirects all calls from 32 bit application to the system registry and folder locations into a seperate area, so that the 32 bit apps cannot conflict in any way with the 64 bit apps. CPU instructions on this platform however, are not emulated, and are passed directly to the CPU, as every x64 compatible processor is capable of natively running x86. In this case, there is no slow down as there is no CPU emulation.

It seems there is a lot of confusion when people talk about x86-64 and 64-bit, as Itanium does tend to get involved.

It is possible that I am also very confused, so if anyone knows better please post :)

+100

you got it in the right track (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
excalpius
On Itanium, the processor is physically unable to run x86 code, so the WOW64 emulator completely translates the code to Itanium compatible instructions and passes these to the CPU.

Yes, when Intel bought the DEC Alpha 64 bit CPU technology from Compaq, they acquired the FX!32 binary translation/emulation program code used to run 32 bit applications on 64 bit DEC Alpha processors. For the Itanium, Intel uses the latest, updated, rebranded version of that code.

Link to post
Share on other sites
scratch42069
Sorry, my bad. I mean, for x86 programs to work on x64 :

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/...22/9244582.aspx

This also means that it is slower, as it is emulation.

It's a negligible performance loss. Seriously, the 2003 FUD against 64-bit doesn't work anymore with hardware and drivers the way they are nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+John.

I'm thinking at least some info will be announced today. Typical PST time though, means it's around 2 in the morning over here in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomwarren
I'm thinking at least some info will be announced today. Typical PST time though, means it's around 2 in the morning over here in the UK.

2:30am to be exact :)

I'll be posting all the stream URLs and a Coveritlive blog up later for everyone to follow along :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrCheese
2:30am to be exact
fail :(

I'd watch it... but work tomorrow.. shame it wasn't last week when I was off

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.