Lord Ba'al Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Still waiting for x64... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccoltmanm Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I wonder how many of us are drolling over every build released? 10,000? 20k? Maybe a few more? How many downloads did 7 Beta get on MS's servers alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I wonder how many of us are drolling over every build released? 10,000? 20k? Maybe a few more?How many downloads did 7 Beta get on MS's servers alone? They removed the 2.5 million key limit they originally had planned, I think that says a lot :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greasy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Damn I hate it when only the x86 build gets leaked. :( What will I do with that other 4GB of RAM? My poor poor VMs. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen W Veteran Posted April 8, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 8, 2009 They removed the 2.5 million key limit they originally had planned, I think that says a lot :laugh: Lol they were never going to limit it in the first place. That limit just scared people so caused a mad rush/LOTS of hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Access Denied Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Well, Im calling it a night. If it finishes for me, you folks will have my unlimited uploads all night and day tomorrow. Good night my fellow beta heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If they are, I wish a 1000 camel fleas to their crotch! :laugh: Awesome! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Lol they were never going to limit it in the first place. That limit just scared people so caused a mad rush/LOTS of hype. They never said they would limit it to 2.5 million keys; the limit was on the number of downloads of the ISOs (2.5 million for each, x86 and x64) as measured from their servers, that's all. It was always understood they'd supply keys as required, and since we've since discovered that there's basically a set number of 'em anyway and then you get repetition it's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Mazza Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 One thing is reporting news, another is underwriting piracy. Thus, if Neowin is sued, who is going to pay? The forum posters? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted April 8, 2009 MVC Share Posted April 8, 2009 One thing is reporting news, another is underwriting piracy. Thus, if Neowin is sued, who is going to pay? The forum posters? No. Exactly. So everyone please be kind and rewind. Oh and don't post warez!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen W Veteran Posted April 8, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 8, 2009 They never said they would limit it to 2.5 million keys; the limit was on the number of downloads of the ISOs (2.5 million for each, x86 and x64) as measured from their servers, that's all. It was always understood they'd supply keys as required, and since we've since discovered that there's basically a set number of 'em anyway and then you get repetition it's a moot point. Yeah, that, but I didn't see them keeping to a limit on downloads either. This kinda thing makes people want it. Bad. Remember when Gmail was limited? That generated hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowl Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 They never said they would limit it to 2.5 million keys; the limit was on the number of downloads of the ISOs (2.5 million for each, x86 and x64) as measured from their servers, that's all. It was always understood they'd supply keys as required, and since we've since discovered that there's basically a set number of 'em anyway and then you get repetition it's a moot point. er- no. if you done helmut's method before the keys reopened you had a unique key, as I do. Mine ends in 3DFFK. Thats not a public key ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Damn I hate it when only the x86 build gets leaked. :(What will I do with that other 4GB of RAM? My poor poor VMs. lol for me I just use them in a virtual machine, no point installing it on a partition. I dont get why people still WANT to use x86, they act like that is their first choice. 64bit cpus have been around for quite some time now, long enough to the point where just about everyone has one, so I dont get why they still want x86. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcghost Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Wow...k no x64 so I'm not even looking yet, but has anyone actually confirmed this "rumors" legitimacy??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowl Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 for me I just use them in a virtual machine, no point installing it on a partition. I dont get why people still WANT to use x86, they act like that is their first choice. 64bit cpus have been around for quite some time now, long enough to the point where just about everyone has one, so I dont get why they still want x86. Sorry, some of us dont need to go to x64 :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Still no x64... guess I'll be calling it a night then :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consume Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Why is it that everyone who wants x64 is complaining about the people who want the x86 version? What's the point of using x64 if you don't have more than 4 gigs of ram? I tried a x64 version of one of the earlier windows 7 leaks and didn't notice anything other than an install that took up an extra gig of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Introspektive Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 You guys follow these releases to religiously. I really like Windows 7 but I recently reverted back to XP because some things just don't work well on 7. At least for me, The start up takes forever. 5 minutes to get to the log in screen, Also takes longer to install programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 You guys follow these releases to religiously. I really like Windows 7 but I recently reverted back to XP because some things just don't work well on 7. At least for me, The start up takes forever. 5 minutes to get to the log in screen, Also takes longer to install programs. That sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris123NT Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Why is it that everyone who wants x64 is complaining about the people who want the x86 version? What's the point of using x64 if you don't have more than 4 gigs of ram? I tried a x64 version of one of the earlier windows 7 leaks and didn't notice anything other than an install that took up an extra gig of space. x64 is quickly becoming the more "universal" architecture. Everybody that has a computer from the last few years has 64 bit capability, so based on that logic, x64 is the most universal version. x86 is only around to power netbooks. Windows 7 will be the last client OS that releases in 32 bit architecture, hell Server 2008 R2 is already x64 ONLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcghost Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 You guys follow these releases to religiously. I really like Windows 7 but I recently reverted back to XP because some things just don't work well on 7. At least for me, The start up takes forever. 5 minutes to get to the log in screen, Also takes longer to install programs. Uhm, can I ask how old your computer is...because if it's not old its either ****ed at some hardware your using or the install was corrupted. Win7 boots faster than anything I have prev installed, not a ton, but noticeable...its def not slower. Plus that is what the majority of people have been braggin about...I also can't complain about compatibility...so far so good.. Just saying you should check... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inctye Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Wow...k no x64 so I'm not even looking yet, but has anyone actually confirmed this "rumors" legitimacy??? Not to be rude or anything, actually read the thread before posting a comment like this. You might be at least the fifth person who asked this question and about 100 posts in this thread (hypothetically) were probably just replies to this same question. FYI, yes it is confirmed legit, safe, working, genuine, .... Might as well just wait until Friday and see if Microsoft makes its "big" announcement they have been teasing us about for the last few days. :p Edited April 8, 2009 by revreddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0sit0 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 You guys follow these releases to religiously. I really like Windows 7 but I recently reverted back to XP because some things just don't work well on 7. At least for me, The start up takes forever. 5 minutes to get to the log in screen, Also takes longer to install programs. Ouch... PIII 500 mhz? :D jk lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcghost Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 x64 is quickly becoming the more "universal" architecture. Everybody that has a computer from the last few years has 64 bit capability, so based on that logic, x64 is the most universal version. x86 is only around to power netbooks. Windows 7 will be the last client OS that releases in 32 bit architecture, hell Server 2008 R2 is already x64 ONLY. Grats...good fact based argument. I mean I have not hated on any x86 users...I just prefer to use x64 one since I can and two since it is going to be standard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consume Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 x64 is quickly becoming the more "universal" architecture. Everybody that has a computer from the last few years has 64 bit capability, so based on that logic, x64 is the most universal version. x86 is only around to power netbooks. Windows 7 will be the last client OS that releases in 32 bit architecture, hell Server 2008 R2 is already x64 ONLY. Yeah I get that but still, if you don't have over 4 gigs of ram, the extra gig of files for x64 are rendered useless right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts