WINDOWS 8 & 7 Discussion

Heard quite a lot that windows 7 is just a pitstop to windows 8..............Also, windows 8 is just gonna be released in 64-bit edition and thier wont be a 32-bit anymore after windows 7.............I think this may be because now days the core 2 duo can run 64-bit and quad core should be capable of running 128-bit thats 4core*32per core = 128-bit....But I think 128-bit will not come before windows 9.....

Wikipedia states windows 8 in 2011 will only have one edition and thats going to be 64-bit.....Windows 8 should carry DX 12 and new hardware requirement.......All we can just hope for well...We should have the beta coming 4th quater 2010 because recently even when windows 7 is not released and yet to enter market microsoft has began working on the windows 8 platform....Thier where several job postings in month of april this year for programme coding under windows 8.........

I would say windows 7 is a OS what vista was suppose to be....I say its vista with all the errors fixed and bugs fixed.....I am using windows 7 RC Biuld 7100 64-bit edition and I have no problems with any drivers even 32-bit drivers seem to work so perfectly because when I was using windows vista ultimate 64-bit edition I had issues with 32-bit drivers to work or configure them selfs properly most times my Cyberlink player wont work which I use for watching Blue ray Disc but now in windows 7 one month up and seem no probs at all with the cyberlink player as compared to vista...

Also, the OS response time is much faster then compared to vista....Adds as a beneficial point here........

What about you guys say to windows 7 as compared to vista???

 

Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit here and never been happier. Surprised that an RC OS is much better / more stable / faster than a mature OS with SP2 (Vista) heh.....

 

For that you will need to try RC out your self and see...I curse vista because 6months back I got windows vista ultimate x64 edition that could activate both 32 and 64 version of vista for 400$$$.....

And now I realize what a big life time mistake was that...Try the RC to see it your self......Windows vista my system base score was 4.6 and windows 7 my system base score is 5.0...So you see difference in base score its higher here because of OS being faster as compared to vista even in RC stage so just imagine what the final release would be like

 

muuuuuuuuch faster in everything! and works out of the box without the need for a 100 updates like Vista, even after the SP2. heh

btw......did u see my signature dude?

I am using Windows 7 Ultimate FTW

 

:yawn: & :yawn: again.............

BTW,
base scores' are generally ruled by the capabilities of the graphics hardware and driver. It's well known that WDDM v1.1 drivers are more efficient and 'faster' than Vista or XP class drivers. So don't go judging a single thing about Win7 by base scores.

 

Ohh!!!!!!My god you just shocked me...I thaught you had vista never read at your bottom........

Thanks man..........I luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv windows 7

 

I am excited about Win 7 coming out soon even though Server 2008 has been working fine for me so far. I am glad they are going with 64 bit only for Win 8. They should have with Win 7.

 

Agreed, I think what's pushed the popularity of 64bit has been the systems with more than 3GB of ram. We are seeing more and more systems that are coming with gobs of memory and the only way to take advantage of it is with 64 bit.

Heck even the i7 core use three channel memory. Newegg now sells a 3x2 memory pack. I think that alone has fueled the popularity of the 64bit OS. I recently purchased a Toshiba laptop with 4GB of ram and it came bundled with Vista Home Premium 64.

 

Weren't you back to XP again, or now Vista? Or 7? And claiming each one a winner?

 

I'm sticking with XP, for gaming at least, certainly for the moment. In my experience gaming in Vista 32bit/Win 7 RC1 64 bit on my rig (specs in sig, which is slightly outdated as I've replaced Vista with Win 7 RC1 64bit) is a bit hit and miss depending on the game, some suffer from stuttering, Fallout 3, and some, like GTR Evoluton don't run as well as they do in XP.

In terms of overall performance and graphical settings I can run games better in XP than in Vista/Win 7, especially where Fallout 3 and GTR Evolution are concerned.

As for Win 8 in 2011. WTH is the point in buying Win 7 if Win 8 is only round the corner, even a 3 year cycle imo is too short.

 

I don't see any mention of Windows 8 anywhere on the Wiki site.

 

This is the only info I was able to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

 

Oh joy! Win7 hasn't even taken it's first real shakedown cruise, and we're already moving on to Win8.

 

Ha. I was thinking the same thing. When last I saw MaXimus he'd switched back to XP for some unknown reason.

With regards to Windows 8 being 64-bit only...that's a no-brainer. Seems like most new machines today are being shipped with x64. The only reason to have 32-bit versions is for legacy equipment and by the time Windows 8 ships that equipment will be in the scrap heap anyway. It'd have been sort of nice had Windows 7 been x64 only, but it was probably about a year too soon to try and pull that off.

 

Same. And it was just a few days ago that I recall seeing that.

Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Windows 8. And there's never been anything about Windows 8 being 64-bit only. Not to say it's unlikely, but back in the day they said Windows 7 would be 64-bit only, too, and that's not happening. So I wouldn't bet the farm on it quite yet.

Right now I don't have any plans to migrate from XP. Windows 7 has some nice features, but I like the compatibility XP gives me more.

 

The next Windows will be 64bit only. 32bit support has already been dropped from Server 2008 with R2.

 

As I said above, that'd be my guess too. But the joker could be the netbook market. The current Atom processors aimed at the netbook space are still 32-bit. Now, Windows 8 is likely at least 3 or 4 years out so possibly by then that market will be all 64-bit too, but all it'd take would be a moderately-sized low end netbook market still in 32-bit to keep MS from abandoning it.

Personally, I wish Microsoft was a little more aggressive at orphaning older stuff but that's never been their MO, much to their detriment I think.

 

They have Atoms that are 64 bit. If you are still using the same netbook three years from now, then too bad.

 

Well, I'd agree with you. But Microsoft has never been so quick to cut that cord. The other joker is the overseas market, developing nations and all that. Will there still be a large 32-bit base there?

If I was a betting man, I'd guess that it'll indeed be x64 only. About time too.

 

Yeah, it is time to move on. If the other countries really need 32bit then Win 7 will be available for them.

 

Well, the only 64-bit capable Atom is the nettop version. Also if you are using the same netbook, I don't see the reason to change the OS from the provided Linux, XP, or Vista already offered.

I'm sure within 2-3 years time Intel will have a 64-bit capable netbook Atom CPU, as well as AMD and nVidia with 64-bit netbook CPU's. Think about it though, netbooks are using XP, which is ten year old technology. And Vista is on some, which is still three year old technology, and there will be 32-bit Win7, that will carry them for another 3-4 years.

 

I'm talking about Win 8.

 

DX10 hasn't even been really used yet, DX11 is coming out next year. DX12 already? I doubt it.

 

Windows 8 so soon? Ugh. I can't even get Autodesk inventor 9 on my Windows 7 machine. I'm going to need to upgrade from XP sooner or later on other machines, and not thrilled about shelling out $6000 for the new stuff. They need better backwards compatibility in that even than Windows 7, forget about DX12 and only 64-bit.

 

Did you try running it in compatibility mode? I'm running the new 3dsmax just fine.

 

All you people need to do is little research or google....anyways here is the web address : http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2559

Scroll down to bottom where the folowing para is located and see it for yourself..........

If Microsoft sticks to the kind of schedule to which it has adhered with Windows 7, Windows 8 will be released around 2011 (with Microsoft publicly promising a 2012 delivery target).

Okay

 

See its simple till DX 11 carries certain 32-bit application files also but with windows 8 its changing as it had happened with windows 95 coming in only 32-bit version ......so you need new 64-bit directx APIs and new GPU to support true color 64-bit technology and thats where name DX12 comes inn...

And yes the abpove info is true that thier is only going to be a 64-bit version of windows 8 and no more 32-bit....Now even laptop vendors have started supplying the current laptops with 4GB ram and vista home premium 64-bit....

32-bit has got limitations to it and 64-bit comes unlimited....

 

well thats exactly how it works.....Trust me..thats how they calculate....I wouldn't joke around here.............Its a true info..32-bit platform is coming to end with windows 7.....windows 8 will only have 64-bit and windows 9 is expected to have 128-bit along with 64 -bit somewhere around 2016...

 

REALLY?

I fixed this for you, just so you could see how silly a statement it really is.

 

Um.. the WEI top score in Windows 7 is also higher. The top score in windows 7 is 7.9 as opposed to 5.9 in vista ( i think).

 

You are indeed correct.
Taken from the W7 help files:

 

Hahah.. couldn't stop laughing

lol... please review your highschool math

a Quadcore processor (excluding i7) can do 4 sets of 64bit instructions or 8 sets of 32bit instructions at the same time. So if you're calculating your way, that's 4x64=256bit. With corei7 with hyperthreading, that's 512bit.

With octacore coming out in the future, there might be 1024bit processors.

 

I dont have to review my math I am far better I know that........Ok first of all take your stupid meaning less statements else where in forum...I dont need you huys to come and pass comments in my thread...

Discussion in this thread is on windows 7 and 8........So ,far what ever I said like 32-bit platforms are coming to end with windows 7 and windows 8 is just gonna have 64-bit only is true as per the ZDnet reviews.....

Let me explain to you guys firstly back in old days when windows 95 was released we didn't have 64-bit at that time it came along 32-bit later with windows xp & 2000(if I am not mistaken)........So assuming that I am just trying to figure out that windows 9 should have 128-bit architecture coming along 64-bit.....

Well, okay then I may be wrong in calculating what each core is capable off...Agree with you folks thier...

But, dont pass meaning less statements out here..Mr.S.SubZero...Go online and just google it thats what even microsoft says because windows 8 will be just around the corner after launch of windows 7 thats just 1.5yrs after...

 

My appologies for what I had said earlier...Thanks for correction...I was just going by what the ZDNET had mentioned thats all

 

You are kind of posting like it's a done deal already. You seem to be misinterpreting the news posts. Microsoft is just testing the people that make applications and the general public to see if an exclusive 64bit would work. There has been no definitive answer yet so saying there will only be a 64bit version of Windows 8 is a little misleading.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Exploring-Windows-8-Exclusively-64-Bit-Scenario-98641.shtml
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669212/Windows-8-in-64-bit-only/News/
http://keznews.com/5091_Microsoft_Exploring_Windows_8_Exclusively_64-Bit_Scenario

 

Windows 200 came within less than 2 years from Windows 98 sooooo I don't see the big deal with Windows 8 being in 2011/2012. Honestly, if you're a tech freak just upgrade when it comes >_> For most daily uses the basics stay the same >.>

 

Uuuuuuhhh, you didn't mention anything about ZDNet in your original post. You specifically stated that you got your info from WIKIPEDIA, which doesn't even have a Windows 8 section yet (it was deleted because it was fake). Who cares what some out-of-context blog says about Windows and their theories with barely any concrete evidence (OMG, Microsoft is hiring for OS development, it's been confirmed: Windows 8 is in the development stages, well... DUH!)

The fact is that of course Microsoft is working on the next OS, it's what they do. There will be a Windows 9, 10, etc. and whatever they decide to name it, it's their choice.

But it won't even come out earlier than 2012 for sure and if Windows 7 is really that good and stable, I don't see them the need to work as quickly on their next OS. 7 was released so soon after Vista because they wanted to forget about Vista and all the bad rep it has been receiving. So lets first see how Windows 7 ends up and not get ahead of ourselves.

And 128-bit computing on the personal computer market? That won't happen for a while. Do we need it? Not at this time but like any other computer technology, eventually we will need it. Hell, most people are still using 32-bit (including myself). The average consumer right now doesn't even need 64-bit. Servers... yes.. but I don't really see it in personal computers. We will eventually move to 64 but 128 is a long way off. To be honest, I don't even see 128-bit OS coming to the market for average consumers in our lifetime.

 

Spelled out simple:

The amount of cores has NOTHING to do with how wide the address registers are. There are 64-bit Pentium 4 and Athlon CPUs, Itanium CPUs, and super old supercomputer processors from the '60s.

64-bit addressing is built into a CPU. It requires a small hardware addition on die in addition to instruction sets to operate the 64-bit registers. This comes most commonly in the form of EMT64 and AMD64.

32-bit and 64-bit registers describe how wide the data path is that memory travels through. The wider path in turn allows for increased memory utilization, the ability to easier expand security options in the form of encryption, more precise floating point operations, and larger memory-mapping of files. Up to 16 exabytes of memory addressing.

It is my opinion that we will see the introduction of 128-bit personal computers within the next 20 years. Unless we make major advances in quantum computing, that is...

There are no solid facts on Win8 right now. Only speculation and rumors. It is unlikely that the next version of Windows will be 64-bit only. I would expect the version after that to be.
BTW, the Win8 Wiki article was deleted. Probably created by the OP.

 

It's ok to make mistakes.

It's not ok to be pig-headed about correcting them.

 

win7 (and so does vista) runs very well on pre 64bit hw like p4 and such. so thanks, no, they shouldn't go 64bit only.

and to the op, the nowadays systems aren't 64bit because they have two 32bit cores so don't the quadcores have 128bits.

each core by itself runs 64bit code. just to get rid of that missinformation.

 

128bit is not needed. 64bit isn't even "there" yet. we only have 48bit memory space right now, and it's "more than enough". Full 64bit will allow 16777216 Terabytes of RAM.

when will a single system need / have more than that? talking about RAM

maybe in our lifetime. but not for any home system ever. we won't even see hdds that big in our lifetime i'd say.

 

Ehem.... Sounds like the days when all the execs were saying there would never be a 32-bit OS, or that we'd never reach the capabilities of 16-bit systems...

Never say never... History will repeat itself.

 

the problem is, every x2 in bitness means a ^2 in storage size. so it's not like it's linear at all.

we go from

8bit: 256 adresses
16bit: 65536 adresses
32bit: 4294967296 adresses
64bit: 18446744073709551616 adresses
128bit: 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 adresses.

in other words, the 4gb limit was reachable. we reached it with hdd's years ago, now we reach it with memory. but 16777216 Terabytes is really really really far off.


i don't say "never", but i say never for a "personal computer". if we drop personal computers and build some borg-style ship instead where everything is connected, maybe we have a closed one-fits-all-adressspace for all storage. then, yep, why not go to 128bit space, it would be better by then, yes

 

haven't seen it before posting, so i'm sorry. i was reading trough the thread while replying. i was too fast. i moved on.

 

While Windows 7 will still offer a 32-bit version, Microsoft has stated and shown that Server 2008 R2 (Windows 7 Server) will be 64-bit exclusive. This is being considered a good sign as to Microsoft's desire to get off the 32-bit train.

 

MS Server 2008 is available in both 64 bit and 32 bit versions. The big changes in the server OS is in virtualization and Web App IIS.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

 

server 2008 R2 (which is the counterpart to win7.. which shows that it's just vista R2 btw ) is only in 64bit available.

the important part you've overseen is R2. the normal 2008 is 32bit and 64bit, yep.

 

no improvement at all on my hw, but it's an improvement in some cases and a usage quality loss in some others. but it's a new OS to sell, yes but no new recoding of the system, like vista was.

but yes, we have full agreement. i personally am just not at all impressed by win7 (espencially gui and libraries are against my way the os should have evolved). and i don't like how they changed uac. but else, they have quite nice enhancements, which i like (new service model, directx11, direct2d and directwrite are nice api enhancements..).

but not that much actually all in all..

i'm in a wait'n'see mode somehow..

 

But the RC is quite good and fast as compared to vista.....But do you guys really believe that RC and final retail version will have a major difference...

Also, whats SSD??Heard abt it but deos it also have temps like a normal laptop hard disk has got because of rotation per minute...

I would say that I think Bill Gates is getting old so he wants as many as OS to be released before he gets too old....I would say the gap between XP and vista was rite because it allowed all the software makers to provide neccessary drivers...But now just 2yrs and windows 7 on its way then may be 1.5yrs and windows 8 on its way...I think they have made a joke out of the releases........What you guys say...

Also, heard that xp will have support untill 2014 then why not DX10 for xp??