ScoobyDoo555

HERE

Seems pointless in installing Vista now Might as well wait!!

Dan

PeteBrant

When he says a "new version" he means an update rather than a whole new operating system. MS have spent far too much money on Vista to just write it off.

Hanley

Windows 7 is a complete new OS for desktop and server.

It has always been on the MS product map but I wouldn't expect to see it within the next 2 years.

People I have spoken to at Microsoft in Reading, and I know they're not Bill Gates, suggest 2010 at the earliest.

Sonic'

Nope its been brought forward to 2009, I mentioned this last week on the Vista thread

PeteBrant

Right, when you say "brand new operating system" Don't go expecting anything "new" as such. This will be built on Vista technology, make no mistake about that. Take a look at the Milestone1 build of Windows7.

This will be like Windows 95-98 - Not like Window XP to Vista.

Iain Young

From what I've heard from various sources, 2009 is the date for the first alpha / test release. The retail product is likely to be 1-2 years after that

Hanley

I also thought the same.

Hanley

Of course it's built on Vista technology, it's still a 'new operating system' though

Shark Man

You can't wait in the computer game; you buy what's current (and only when you need to buy - not in a whimsical sense). End of. Otherwise you'll be waiting forever for the "new" this to come out and the new "that" to become mainstream.

We bought 5 new computers; Vista is the current OS, It cost us the same price as XP (well, they were XP OEM - but with FREE Vista OEM upgrade, so why turn down a freebie? ), so thats what was put on.

In three years time when we buy more PCs, we stick whatever is current on them.

Its swings and roundabouts; sticking with old current "known" stuff is fine. But do it too much and you end up with software that is no longer supported, and you end up having to play catch-up come crunch time. When ultimately it doesn't do what you want it to, is no longer supported for updates/help/tech etc. or won't make full use of modern hardware....Like 64bit hardware support, christ isn't about time that 32bit software be dumped now? (flame suit on )


I wouldn't buy Vista alone because it's the "must have". (and for your wallet's sake NEVER buy retail versions ) It's only if the system is being bought new, and the OEM option is available (like office2007 - I hate it, but thats progress - I have to deal with it).

So I wouldn't buy a new OS on a old/upgraded PC; only outright new. Otherwise your asking for problems.


As you'd be endlessly upgrading the thing all the time (something Con Kolivas made a good point in mentioning when criticising how crap and archaic PCs (as in IBM compatible - Mac included to some extent) are when compared to architecture 20years ago - where hardware had dominance over software and dictated software to cope with fixed hardware (i.e not upgradeable) - whereas now its the reverse. So now when the code monkeys come up with the next hugely bloated and inefficient software, your expected to change all the hardware to cope. So if you change software, you need to change hardware.

I suppose that should be left for another thread

How I miss the days when I could just stick in a disk for a Amiga or a Acorn A3000 and know it would work...without having to check if I had a powerful enough processor, enough RAM, a GS6800 minimum gfx card running at least 1280x1080 resolution and 16M colours, 20gig free hard disk space, etc etc.

PeteBrant

Why? What's wrong with 32 bit software?

For the most part, 64-bit memory addressing won't give you any advantage at all with current software.

One lots of programs start to need more than 4GB of memory, then you'll have a need for 64bit systems.

Iain Young

Well, things like Photoshop, Premiere, Lightwave etc will all use the memory if you have it. 64bit should be the norm now imo. 32bit is so old skool :

spectrum48k

From history, it seems to take MS at least couple of goes to get a relatively stable version of an OS...

Windows 95
First version plagued with problems until eventually we got arguably the most stable version, Windows 98 Second Edition (ME I prefer to think of as a backwards step)

Windows 2000
First version beset with teething problems, but settled down and provided the foundation for Windows XP, albeit with Sp2

Windows Vista
First people to use it beset by various teething problems, but will settle down to provide the foundation for Windows 7

Personally, I'm giving Vista a miss while it's in it's settling down period. Its loaded into my VMWare but that's it for now.

Shark Man

Progress.

64bit hardware has been around on a domestic level for almost five years now, about time 32bit was binned. Like 16bit. Then maybe would would actually see software that could take proper advantage of it, rather than having to keep legacy support for 32bit hardware.

The problem with current 64bit software is its made for 32bit and bodged to work on 64bit, so far from utilising its potential (almost akin to filling those extra 32bits with zeros on every clock pulse).

Ghetto Dude3

vista = the bugeye of operating systems, slower and crappier then the best one and replaced ASAP when the manufacturers relise what a **** up it is

djuk

Works better, faster, smoother and with more hardware for me - I'd say it was the opposite of a **** up

Ghetto Dude3

remember that a select few actually paid good money for a new bug eye

dunx

iTrader: (3)

Yeah and what's that got to do with Vista's replacement ?

You buy when you need it, and get the latest, sod the "service pack up-grade" mentality.... If I wait I could get a diesel STI in 2010

LOL

DunxC - I hate Netgear but that's another story...

PeteBrant

It sounds like you're confusing the term "64bit" to apply to IO bandwidth as opposed to what it actually refers to in terms of PCs and X86 processors

Memory addressing.

32 Bit systems allow you to address 4GB or memory. 64bit system allow you to address 16TB of memory.


Now unless your aplication needs to address more than 4GB, then there will no advantage whatsoever.

So if you had, say a 32 bit and a 64 bit edition of, say, Windows media player - you will see no difference at all.

But as Iain says, on programs like Photoshop etc, where you are dealing lots of big images, you will see an advantage when you break through 4GB.

(of course this relies on you having more than 4GB in your machine, and a 64 bit operating system, and a 64 bit application, not to mention a 64 bit processor)

Ghetto Dude3

some people buy it thinking its great while the masses think its crap and wait until a better one comes out