The momentum for Windows 7 continues to build, and it seems so far that Microsoft is doing a good job at redeeming the Windows name after Vista. Windows 7 is fast, seemingly very stable, application compatibility seems good, and the reaction from the tech community and media is far more favorable than it has been in the past couple of years.
So the technical side of Windows 7 is going pretty well, and we haven’t seen much out of marketing yet, but there have been many discussions online about how much Windows 7 will actually cost consumers. Some have suggested it should be free, which is quite ridiculous, and others speculate it will be similar to what Windows Vista was.
One of my biggest displeasures with Windows Vista wasn’t so much on the technical side, as it was with the actual price and the lack of license bundles. With some Vista licenses averaging out around $200, it just wasn’t economically feasible to outfit my entire house with copies of Vista, which I would have liked to have done. I have roughly 5 PC’s in my house, so give or a take a bit, it could have easily cost over $1000 to get my home setup with Vista.
Now I certainly don’t expect Windows 7 to be free, but I’m now wondering how Microsoft will set the pricing for new and upgrade purchases. I really hope it reasonably priced, because going too high will have a real negative impact in my opinion. I would like to see a simple upgrade from either Vista or XP for $99, with a 3-license family pack for $150. I think that would be very competitive, and get even more people to upgrade.
What do you think?
Using Microsoft products does not necessarily make you a fan of Microsoft; therefore, there is nothing wrong with complaining about a product that you actually use. I actually think you are in a better position to constructively criticize products/services you use than those who don't. Still you can certainly complain about a product that you don't use and are familiar with, but there is something wrong with assuming that if someone doesn't like Microsoft that makes them a fan of Apple however.
Really funny that he thinks I use a Apple machine when this rig is running Linux...
LOL Dunno about beautiful sheep herding women... but I've heard on the grapevine that lipstick and lingerie helps to make those jumbucks look a little more homely out there in the great expanse of the outback.
Well that is certainly good news... guess I missed that, probably because we had to select either 32 or 64 bit when downloading the betas and RC.
Well it seems, then, MS has learned its lesson, since it made Vista Home Premium 32 bit only, thus forcing users who wanted to run 64 bit (particularly here in Australia) to go to extreme lengths to find a copy.
I looked into that when I wanted to switch over to x64, but because I have an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate they said that I was ineligible for that deal. Sadly, the OEM is not both 32 and 64 bit. While the quick guide pamplet suggests that it has both versions, my copy clearly states on the disc that it contains 32 bit only, otherwise I would have reinstalled selecting 64 bit.
Hey guys if all your apps are 32 bit and the OS has to run in a special mode to run a 32 bit mode than why by a 64 bit OS?
Useless...
Only reason I refered to Apple is because there is no real entity to get checks from that represents Linux (unless you count IBM).
Nesrie - the thing is most complaining about Microsoft is not constructive, but rather useless remarks like "I suggest that MS will pay us, if they want that we use their "OS"." abound whenever I see a conversation about Windows 7. And the notion that a consumer is "owed" Windows 7 for free because he did not like the Vista he paid for is absurd.
Again, not saying that I'm a Microsoft fanboy, and I have been known to use Ubuntu (mainly on my laptop, and when I have programming work to do on my desktop). But like I said in my previous post, I have never had any bad experience with Windows, and once I am comfortable that the release version is stable, I will be upgrading to Windows 7. (Granted, I just got an oem Vista with a free upgrade voucher for my new computer. Though if it weren't for the voucher, I simply would have used Linux until Windows 7.)
[quote who="kona0197"] Hey guys if all your apps are 32 bit and the OS has to run in a special mode to run a 32 bit mode than why by a 64 bit OS?Useless...
A special mode for 32 bit programs? All my programs work fine in 64 bit. Do applications even differ at all for each version? I thought it was mainly drivers that had to be coded differently. Are you confusing this with the "XP mode"?
(pshaw, my quote tags are fine, I don't know what's up with the way the post looks)
Running a 64 bit OS has the advantage of being able to access more RAM when multi-tasking, thus preventing freeze-ups and making it more stable. Also, 64 bit OSes make better use of compatible CPU's, thus enabling better processing power during multi-tasking and/or when using resource intensive apps: ie, video or graphice rendering/editing, etc.
However, while it is true today that most apps are 32 bit, software developers are coming around to 64 bit and more will become available... meaning that having a 64 bit OS is being prepared for the future of computing. Besides, if running a 64 bit OS provides greater system stability/performance, even when running 32 bit apps, surely that has to be a good thing, right?
So no, a 64 bit OS is not useless!
And yet my original argument remains. Why does Windows need more RAM to run? Because it's bloated.
Apple uses memory differently. So does Linux. Therefore we probably don't need gobs of memory to use the OS.
No one will disagree with Vista being very resource heavy even when idle. Reportedly (according to multiple reviews) Windows 7 alleviates a lot of that.
One would only hope. So why do you need more than 4 GB of memory for Windows 7? And if you do not why then go with 64 bit?
I can not give Karma even to kona0197.
Oh man, i now many stories ...not fiction ones. But the point?
Most people DID NOT install Windows 7 Home Premium RC, but the "Ultimate".
Just FYI, with Ultimate you see, how all drivers go through, within seconds....
and if you do not have ultimate, expect neverending qestions... etc.
This is even stated on their website, how driver support is lowered e.g. with home premium...
....and if you don't have Vista... there is a WAU (Windows Anytime Upgrade).
Why? to get your money.
kona: to play video games that require more memory? To multitask the system with more, heavier processes?
Phantasma: You can end your sentences with periods instead of ellipses. Just sayin. I've not heard anything about there being different drivers for Ultimate versus other versions of Windows 7. And I've tried to keep up with the news on it. Do you have a source?
(and duh they would want you to spend the money to upgrade to Ultimate. They are, after all, a business.)
Didn't think anyone would want to give me karma. Thanks.
The OS doesn't need more than 4GB memory, even Vista does not. Applications and games require memory, and the more you have, the better your computer will behave. Why? Because you can have a whole lot more of the system cached in memory. Disk cache in memory is heck of a lot faster than direct access. With drives hitting terabytes it makes sense to have gigabytes of them cached in memory over time.
And you start to sound alot like good ol' Bill:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
starkers, for your info here in good old AUSTRALIA just today I had helped a customer obtain a LEGIT vista home premium 64bit oem at a computer fair for his NEW I7 box, BLOODY HELL its FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the i7 not the v********ta
it beats my oced q6600 on movie recoding by 2 to 1 ie it takes 6 min 35 seconds, mine takes 13 min with win7 64bit 8gb ddr2 800 ram, and the i7 920 with 6gb ddr3 1600 and the completed tower cost aprox $2200 au
harpo
Mine came in at just on 3 ....but it's all about the other bits....as well...not just the cpu and ram ....
I'm not saying we can't get x64 OSes at alll.... I am saying, however, that the larger retailers do not carry them, and most won't order them in on a one-off basis.... thus making x64 OSes as rare as rocking horse shit in all but some of the smaller PC stores... and even then they don't always stock them, you have place them on order
By the way after some research I learned that the current Linux Kernel build - 32 bit - can support and use up to 64 GB of RAM.
This is only true for certain processors, and has nothing to do with what OS you're using. For most processors, the max memory for 32 bit is ~4 GB (that includes the memory in a GPU). And there is a 64 bit Linux build.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
edit: I was mistaken - the only Windows OS with PAE are a couple of their server OSs. For home use, Windows 32 bit can't go above 4 GB of RAM. However, the fact remains that the processor has to have PAE capability for the OS to use. I am not sure how common it is for a processor to have this.
Windows 32 bit can't go above 4 GB but Linux can. Ha.
It doesn't have anything to do with the CPU. It has to do with the mobo. If you can install 8 GB of RAM and that old Pentium 4 chip can see it and use it then so be it. The only thing that limits RAM usage is the OS.
Nobody cares about Linux. I mean nobody.
On this site you are right.
Except the folks that use it.
ID....you're gonna make all the propeller-hat wearers cry, now.
Nobody loves me - everybody hates me - think I'll go and eat worms.....
If you actually read any of the link, for the chip to "see" it, it has to be able to calculate higher than the 32 bits allow, using the PAE architecture. This issue has nothing to do with how many slots your motherboard has.
Like I said, I'm not sure how many chips have PAE architecture built into them. From what basic research I did, it seemed like it's generally something on server chips, but not on home computers, since every time the term came up in a search it was in relation to a server. It just so happens that Linux (which is popular for servers) has the same kernel for both servers and home use.
And honestly, if you have the chip to support it, there is no reason to not go to 64 bit OS. If your processor isn't good enough to run 64 bit, then upgrading RAM past 3 GB probably shouldn't be your priority.
My CPU is 32 bit. Max memory I can use on this setup is 1 GB.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
