Starting Windows 8

[thealexweb]

The risks do not outweigh the benifets so no they should build from windows 7.

[christb]

I think the risk is minimal.

Imagine if microsoft do release windows 8 in 128 bit platform like this article says..

[Quattrone]

its my believe that Windows 8 is not going to be different than Windows 7 at all. Same GUI with probably new tools and updates in current tools.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Imagine if microsoft do release windows 8 in 128 bit platform like this article says..

They don't mean 128bit in the sense of our current 32bit and 64bit processors, they're talking about what types of data the processors can operate on.

We won't be using proper 128bit processors for a long, long time.

[Quattrone]

They don't mean 128bit in the sense of our current 32bit and 64bit processors, they're talking about what types of data the processors can operate on.

We won't be using proper 128bit processors for a long, long time.

Only 10% of the pc users are in 64bit, it will take years before anyone use 64bit as mainstream. So 128bit is not even in the industry mind yet.

[christb]

this is as close as we can see so far..

[ccoltmanm]

Only 10% of the pc users are in 64bit, it will take years before anyone use 64bit as mainstream. So 128bit is not even in the industry mind yet.

Your statement doesn't hold water for the future, about about half (that's 46%) of all Windows 7 users have the 64bit version installed.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20010092-75.html

[hdood]

Click the start button.

[AltecXP]

I wonder how many lines of code from NT 3.5 are still in Windows 7.

Your statement doesn't hold water for the future, about about half (that's 46%) of all Windows 7 users have the 64bit version installed.

http://news.cnet.com...0010092-75.html

And Windows 7 is only about 15% of the market. so thats under 7% of PC's are using 64-bit Windows.

[Nihilus]

Heh, so Microsoft are going to go back to their two year release cycle and still rebuild the OS from scratch? That was a joke, right? :| Why would anyone even want them to?

As for that 128-bit thing:

?Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.?

[seta-san]

a rewrite will NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER.

on the other hand with hardware virtualization i think that microsoft WILL drop obsolete apis an programs, etc from one release to the next. They have been maintaining excellent backwards compatibility at the expense of outdated bloat that's just holding the system back. i hope they get rid of the registry.

[M_Lyons10]

How should they start building Windows 8?

Should they build off of previous OS releases and their code, or should they start from ABSOLUTE scratch and build everything from the registery to the calculator from nothing?

I can see benifiets on both sides, where you can cut time and resoucres starting on top of other OS's, or start fresh and build the bare nessities. I can only imagine they have improved their code writing and how they organize stuff.

I wouldn't expect a rewrite of the entire OS... It just doesn't make any sense. They can rewrite or improve certain parts of the OS, but what's the sense in doing all of this from scratch? The OS already includes a very large feature set. Why start over and try to redo work that has already been done...?

a rewrite will NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER.

on the other hand with hardware virtualization i think that microsoft WILL drop obsolete apis an programs, etc from one release to the next. They have been maintaining excellent backwards compatibility at the expense of outdated bloat that's just holding the system back. i hope they get rid of the registry.

I see this a lot, but what would you have them replace the registry with? For what benefits? I just do not see the point...

[LightShadow]

Your statement doesn't hold water for the future, about about half (that's 46%) of all Windows 7 users have the 64bit version installed.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20010092-75.html

May be true, but a lot don't want to move to x64 mainly because the lack of software. The majority of software is not in x64. Flash is still not x64 on windows, no stable x64 browsers, office just released in x64. No major software in x64. And some apps don't even function right.

So it would be a big step up.

[Nihilus]

i hope they get rid of the registry.

Why? :s

[hdood]

As for that 128-bit thing:

?Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.?

8? 9? Windows 7 doesn't support IA-64, and 2008 R2 is the last server edition that supports it (it's been officially discontinued.)

on the other hand with hardware virtualization i think that microsoft WILL drop obsolete apis an programs, etc from one release to the next. They have been maintaining excellent backwards compatibility at the expense of outdated bloat that's just holding the system back.

Windows doesn't really have one set of APIs that are "old" and one that is "new." You can't really remove anything without also breaking brand new made-for-Windows 7 software.

[seta-san]

I wouldn't expect a rewrite of the entire OS... It just doesn't make any sense. They can rewrite or improve certain parts of the OS, but what's the sense in doing all of this from scratch? The OS already includes a very large feature set. Why start over and try to redo work that has already been done...?

I see this a lot, but what would you have them replace the registry with? For what benefits? I just do not see the point...

text files. binary files. back in the windows 98 days the registry made sense. today it's a hive of incomprehensable data that is unusuable and it's cluttering gets so bad that it actually affects system performace and microsoft hasn't even included a utlitity to clean it up.

[soldier1st]

Windows 8 needs to be 64bit only, cmon MS it is the right time to make a 64bit only os, get with the times.

[ccoltmanm]

And Windows 7 is only about 15% of the market. so thats under 7% of PC's are using 64-bit Windows.

I hope you know there people that use Vista (11%) and XP (around 2 %) use 64bit. Not to mention Macs and Linux.

More than 7%. MY point was the trend.

[hdood]

text files. binary files. back in the windows 98 days the registry made sense. today it's a hive of incomprehensable data that is unusuable

You're also confusing separate issues here. The registry itself is simply a database, it cares nothing about what is stored in it. Your "incomprehensible data" complaint is thus with the data Windows stores in the registry database (which is not intended to be human readable, and makes heavy use of things like GUIDs), not the database itself. If we were to replace the registry with some other storage, the data stored would not change. It would be the exact same, just spreade over thousands and thousands of files (remember, Windows has access control requirements down to the key level.) The text files could not be accessible to the user or hand-editable either, because then something could lock the file and bring down the whole OS. This was a problem with Windows 3.11 and older which used this system. So, actual access to the text files would have to be abstracted away through APIs, and then what have you accomplished?

Really, what you are asking for is a major architectural redesign of Windows, and not just getting rid of the registry database. Now if Windows had been designed today, it would have been designed a little different, but it would likely still store its configuration data in a database.

cluttering gets so bad that it actually affects system performace and microsoft hasn't even included a utlitity to clean it up.

Evidence? I am requesting it, because to me the registry seems like a fairly high perfomance database that plain text files can't match. The only thing that can affect performance is invalid values in keys the system depends on, and I don't see how that would be any less of a problem if the invalid values were stored in some other format.

[Darth Laidher]

Windows 8 needs to be 64bit only, cmon MS it is the right time to make a 64bit only os, get with the times.

I don't think they will.By the time 8 is released I think most if not all hardware will be x64 only.The only reason I see them not doing 8 in x64 only versions is because of older systems.Older systems holds back Windows because they have to commendate older systems which sucks.

[christb]

As for that 128-bit thing:

?Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.?

For the time being, Windows 7 is still anchored in the past, and just as Windows Vista, features its editions both in 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64). If Microsoft continues to deliver Windows operating systems at the pace of one each three years, users can expect Windows 8 in 2011 or 2012. And while the Redmond company is bound to cut 32-bit support in the future for the Windows client, just as it did server-side with Windows Server 2008 R2, it has yet to be confirmed officially that Windows 8 or Windows 9 will play nice with 128-bit processors (CPUs).

Only time will tell when are we gonna usw 128 bit cpu's...

[TechFreak:)]

Windows doesn't really have one set of APIs that are "old" and one that is "new." You can't really remove anything without also breaking brand new made-for-Windows 7 software.

Windows 7 still has a lot of obsolete APIs, but this is because they want to keep backward compatibility.

One of obsolete "features" is registry. Biggest downside is that it's loaded in memory and if you install lots of crap regularly, system will eventually slow down. It might not be that bad if Windows would actually follow what changes to the registry every program makes and on uninstall it would simply revert back and remove unnecessary stuff.

AFAIK there is still a lot of software that need administration privileges to run. Microsoft could simply say that they are obsolete and wouldn't allow installation of such programs. The same goes for programs that don't use appropriate folders for their data (e.g. user data goes into X:\{user}\AppData, executables and DLLs go into X:\Program Files, etc.)

[Darth Laidher]

For the time being, Windows 7 is still anchored in the past, and just as Windows Vista, features its editions both in 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64). If Microsoft continues to deliver Windows operating systems at the pace of one each three years, users can expect Windows 8 in 2011 or 2012. And while the Redmond company is bound to cut 32-bit support in the future for the Windows client, just as it did server-side with Windows Server 2008 R2, it has yet to be confirmed officially that Windows 8 or Windows 9 will play nice with 128-bit processors (CPUs).

Only time will tell when are we gonna usw 128 bit cpu's...

No I don't think we'll see it out for a while yet.look at Windows ME and Windows 2000, they didn't last long because they were crap to most people then came XP that lasted what 6 years? Since Microsoft seem's to have Windows 7 decently built I don't see them rushing to get a replacement OS any time soon.

[LightShadow]

No I don't think we'll see it out for a while yet.look at Windows ME and Windows 2000, they didn't last long because they were crap to most people then came XP that lasted what 6 years? Since Microsoft seem's to have Windows 7 decently built I don't see them rushing to get a replacement OS any time soon.

But what about Microsoft's every two-three years. Windows 95 - 98 - 2000 - ME - XP (Might be the other way around) That's 5 OS's in 6 years. And currently it now has been 3 OS's in 10 years. So Windows 8 is due around 2011.

[hdood]

Windows 7 still has a lot of obsolete APIs, but this is because they want to keep backward compatibility.

Like? Name some.

One of obsolete "features" is registry. Biggest downside is that it's loaded in memory and if you install lots of crap regularly, system will eventually slow down.

Would you mind providing your benchmarking data that shows that 50 or a 100 or even a 1000 keys under HKCU\Software has a performance impact?

AFAIK there is still a lot of software that need administration privileges to run. Microsoft could simply say that they are obsolete and wouldn't allow installation of such programs. The same goes for programs that don't use appropriate folders for their data (e.g. user data goes into X:\{user}\AppData, executables and DLLs go into X:\Program Files, etc.)

I don't see how this accomplishes anything of value.