Microsoft Confirms Windows "7" - MGX Conference

[FATILA]

They say 32bit now, but who really knows if they won't change their minds come near rtm day. Any machine with a 32 bit chip is bound to have older neighbouring components as well. 7 might run on them, but certainly not well I'd imagine.

I could run Vista on a laptop of mine (I have installed it on a P4 system, although hardly ideal) but choose XP instead, to avoid extreme sluggishness.

[Mr. Dee]

They say 32bit now, but who really knows if they won't change their minds come near rtm day. Any machine with a 32 bit chip is bound to have older neighbouring components as well. 7 might run on them, but certainly not well I'd imagine.

I could run Vista on a laptop of mine (I have installed it on a P4 system, although hardly ideal) but choose XP instead, to avoid extreme sluggishness.

I notice that Vista is not that processor intensive, but the more RAM you give it, the better it performs. Your initial performance issues with Vista might also have been the indexing engine which runs in the background, over a few days, I notice your machine gets faster after Vista has been installed.

[George P Global Moderator]

You have to give the indexer time to work its magic and then it'll stop doing it all the time. Though it could very well be poor drivers for anything from your chipset to your video card. It only takes one key hardware driver to slow everything down.

[freak_power]

Its crap to you, but not to Microsoft, thats why they are planning a 32-bit version of Windows 7 just for it. :p Thank goodness people like you don't even have the scruples to even make it through an interview at MS. If you did work there you would be spreading useless propaganda when you should be spending time in the labs hitting the switch compiling my beta copy of Windows 7 x86 beta 1. You only care about having the latest and greatest just to prove who has the bigger "you know what". You can't even give a decent reason why 64 bit needs to be mainstream by 2010.

Has Adobe announced that they will be releasing a 64-bit only version of Adobe Creative Suite in 2010 which will be Windows 7 64-bit supported only? In fact, an Adobe Program Manager made it clear that 64-bit is not even relevant to products like Photoshop. Products like Alias Wavefront Maya, Adobe Premier don't have any plans to be 64 bit. The actual tools that will take advantage of a 64 bit cop. Not even Speech recognition in Vista x64 has any impact on on the operating systems performance?

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/photo..._multicore.html

What about Quark, AutoDesk? Are they begging for 64 bit? Not even the Office team at MS are yearning to develop 64 bit versions of the desktop apps.

The funny thing about it, the standard amount of memory in systems in 2010 will probably be 2 to 3 GBs, and the max Windows 32-bit can handle is 4 GBs, the majority of most users won't even be needing that by then. So what will you be needing an OS that can handle 128 GBs of memory so bad for? The standard amount as I said will be 2 to 3 GBs of RAM, so what will be the point of even using a 64 bit OS when 32 bit Windows will be able to handle a max 4GBs?!?!?!?!?!

Instead of acting childish about the issue, focus on areas that need real improvement, like being more multicore aware, improved boot sequence, battery life, improved I/O, better memory management, the way the system handles security.

I am on Vista x64 everyday anyway, you can read my review at the following link:

http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns&a...#33;15997.entry

As for why Windows 7 might be better on those computers? You just never know, changes to the kernel might improve performance for older systems. Look at Mac users, they have said that with each upgrade of the operating system, the Mac OS gets faster on older systems. I have seen Mac OS X Panther boot in 15 seconds from Apple logo to desktop on an iMac G3 with 512 MBs of RAM. Why the same can't happen for Windows 7? Vista x64 on my Ferrari 5000 currently takes about 39 seconds to boot. And others have complained:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

Most 32 bit applications with 16 bit installers run just fine on Vista x86 and XP x86, but cannot run on Vista x64 or XP Pro x64. So why can't it be same for Windows 7 x86? Microsoft has the resources to develop Windows 7 32-bit, stop letting it bother you, they have done the market research and analyst. And when I say they have the resources, they have it. The developed a 64 bit version of Windows 2000 Professional for Itanium that was never released and ended releasing XP for Itanium instead. NT is portable and it seems maintainable on multiple architectures. They are delivering value through Windows 7 by still supporting 32 bit systems.

Thank you MS, with love!

2GB is already standard. Vista can really use 4GB of RAM. More and more people are buying 4GB machines. The majority number of people own 64bit version of AMD or Intel processor. If Adobe wont support 64bit platform, who ****ing cares. Bring 64bit OS and you will see they can do it with no problems. Microsoft always misses the point here and there. It's typical for them. By 2010 as I said any P4 platform is most likely to end up in a garbage can. You forgot that most 775 socket P4 platforms are 64bit CPU. Now, because of few people on 478 socket MS still needs to support 32bit? Give me a break.

I never tried to make an interview with MS, but I have a decent programming job. The company where i work ditched P4 a long time ago.

Yes, I do have latest and greatest because I'm not a moron who plays Solitaire and reads email. Visual Studio 2005 simply kills Pentium 4 under Windows XP, not to mention Windows Vista. I think at this point there is no any reason to argue with you...because it would be pointless. And btw AMD64 platform runs 'pure' 64bit application faster then its 32bit version. Having only Windows 7 as 64bit platform wouldn't hurt anybody because i guess it would still support 32bit apps through emulation. And if you ask me I would go for pure 64bit OS. The problem with your mind and most people is that they want for $300 Dell crap machine to run Windows and play games for the next 15 years...well ain't gonna ****ing happen.

Edited July 26, 2007 by freak_power

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

I hope in the next release they stick to just one version, and maybe offer upgrade modules as the user needs though windows live marketplace or something. Too many retail versions just confuse the average user. Or heck go back to the good old days of windows before xp , when you got everything on one copy, everybody is equal.

Consumers: Win 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, and ME.

Businesses: Win NT 3.1/3.11, NT 3.5/3.51, NT 4.0, and 2000 Pro.

uh, hello? There ARE different flavors from past versions of Windows pre-XP.

[WelshBluebird]

2GB is already standard.

no its not.

There are still a crap load of computers being sold that only have 512MB RAM (and thats only cos of vista, before vista, there were loads with only 256MB).

2GB may be the standard for PC gamers and people who are members of neowin, but for the majority of people, 1GB is standard I would say.

[Mr. Dee]

2GB is already standard. Vista can really use 4GB of RAM. More and more people are buying 4GB machines. The majority number of people own 64bit version of AMD or Intel processor. If Adobe wont support 64bit platform, who ****ing cares. Bring 64bit OS and you will see they can do it with no problems. Microsoft always misses the point here and there. It's typical for them. By 2010 as I said any P4 platform is most likely to end up in a garbage can. You forgot that most 775 socket P4 platforms are 64bit CPU. Now, because of few people on 478 socket MS still needs to support 32bit? Give me a break.

I never tried to make an interview with MS, but I have a decent programming job. The company where i work ditched P4 a long time ago.

Yes, I do have latest and greatest because I'm not a moron who plays Solitaire and reads email. Visual Studio 2005 simply kills Pentium 4 under Windows XP, not to mention Windows Vista. I think at this point there is no any reason to argue with you...because it would be pointless. And btw AMD64 platform runs 'pure' 64bit application faster then its 32bit version. Having only Windows 7 as 64bit platform wouldn't hurt anybody because i guess it would still support 32bit apps through emulation. And if you ask me I would go for pure 64bit OS. The problem with your mind and most people is that they want for $300 Dell crap machine to run Windows and play games for the next 15 years...well ain't gonna ****ing happen.

Its obvious you are living on another planet. 2 GBs standard on every PC? Get real and go do some market research. You obviously don't know anything about computers being sold these days, you think everybody buys a PC to compile code? Your name really describes who you are. You don't care if Adobe compiles 64 bit versions of their apps? Heh, well, you have proven my point. I don't have anything against 64-bit, I just don't think that everybody should throw away their very good and still working 32 machines now or in 2010 to fit your ideal fantasy. If you have a problem with Microsoft still supporting 32 bit in Windows, go to another platform such as Solaris/Sparc or AIX/POWER which are 64 bit only, you should do just fine there.

The problem with your mind and most people is that they want for $300 Dell crap machine to run Windows and play games for the next 15 years...well ain't gonna ****ing happen.

But it is happening, it has been happening for many years, get with it even Microsoft realize it. Every retail (except for Ultimate) and OEM copy of Vista that is sold or shipped with a new computer is 32-bit only. For the other SKUs you have to request 64-bit media if you want it. So your campaign for 64 bit only will continue to fall on deaf ears. :p

[y_notm]

You don't care if Adobe compiles 64 bit versions of their apps? Heh, well, you have proven my point.

Does that even matter? The beauty of x64, and why it ultimately caught on unlike the Itanium, is that it is backwards compatible with 32-bit processes. It doesn't matter if or when Adobe or Maya or MS Office or anything becomes 64 bit, as they all will work with an x64 OS/processor right now (provided they don't do anything low-level to the OS)

The fact is, any 32-bit processor that exists when Seven drops will be at least 4 years old. It wouldn't be unreasonable to drop 32-bit versions of the OS. Then again, with x64 and x32 being pretty much equal citizens in the MS build process, it doesn't really cost them all that much to continue to build 32 bit versions of the OS until they have a fast, solid, hypervisor solution they can use for backwards compatibility.

[George P Global Moderator]

Does that even matter? The beauty of x64, and why it ultimately caught on unlike the Itanium, is that it is backwards compatible with 32-bit processes. It doesn't matter if or when Adobe or Maya or MS Office or anything becomes 64 bit, as they all will work with an x64 OS/processor right now (provided they don't do anything low-level to the OS)

The fact is, any 32-bit processor that exists when Seven drops will be at least 4 years old. It wouldn't be unreasonable to drop 32-bit versions of the OS. Then again, with x64 and x32 being pretty much equal citizens in the MS build process, it doesn't really cost them all that much to continue to build 32 bit versions of the OS until they have a fast, solid, hypervisor solution they can use for backwards compatibility.

You just said the magic word, "hypervisor". If it works like MS wants it to, then the OS itself can be 64bit, but any 32bit apps can run on the hypervisor, and people wouldn't know it is. Performence should be the same as a native 32bit app. Plus security will be greatly improved by running this on the hypervisor.

I expect the core OS to be 64bit, so it can enjoy all the benefits that gives to performence. While running 32bit apps, and even drivers on the hypervisor for backwards compatibility.

We'll know in 3 years. Just wait people.

[Mr. Dee]

Does that even matter? The beauty of x64, and why it ultimately caught on unlike the Itanium, is that it is backwards compatible with 32-bit processes. It doesn't matter if or when Adobe or Maya or MS Office or anything becomes 64 bit, as they all will work with an x64 OS/processor right now (provided they don't do anything low-level to the OS)

The fact is, any 32-bit processor that exists when Seven drops will be at least 4 years old. It wouldn't be unreasonable to drop 32-bit versions of the OS. Then again, with x64 and x32 being pretty much equal citizens in the MS build process, it doesn't really cost them all that much to continue to build 32 bit versions of the OS until they have a fast, solid, hypervisor solution they can use for backwards compatibility.

So you run 64-bit Vista just because you know its powerful? Heh, lame. I haven't seen any applications out there "consumer applications" that have benefited from Vista x64, the majority of most applications will continue to be 32 bit because it works just fine and I am not experiencing any bottle necks in Word or PowerPoint to justify a 64 bit version of Office. The beauty maybe its compatibility but the nightmare seems to be that a lot of applications are not exploiting the power. Either because, most machines now and in 2010 will come with a minimum of 1, 2 or 4 GBs of RAM which x86 Windows Vista and 7 will support just fine. You will find the rare enthusiast markets pushing it to 8, 16 GB configs, but thats generally a niche market. 64 Bit now and the near future will continue to be a relevant choice in Server space and the apps and configurations are there to prove it.

[y_notm]

So you run 64-bit Vista just because you know its powerful? Heh, lame. I haven't seen any applications out there "consumer applications" that have benefited from Vista x64, the majority of most applications will continue to be 32 bit because it works just fine and I am not experiencing any bottle necks in Word or PowerPoint to justify a 64 bit version of Office. The beauty maybe its compatibility but the nightmare seems to be that a lot of applications are not exploiting the power. Either because, most machines now and in 2010 will come with a minimum of 1, 2 or 4 GBs of RAM which x86 Windows Vista and 7 will support just fine. You will find the rare enthusiast markets pushing it to 8, 16 GB configs, but thats generally a niche market. 64 Bit now and the near future will continue to be a relevant choice in Server space and the apps and configurations are there to prove it.

I personally don't run 64-bit because I don't have such a processor. But you don't need to have applications designed for 64-bit to take advantage of it. Perhaps you want the advanced security technologies you can only get in the 64-bit systems (Patchguard, anyone?) or maybe you're a heavy multitasker who needs to use more than 4GB of RAM. With the advent of Vista, it seems that hardware and software manufacturers alike are slowly starting to release 64-bit compatible software and drivers simultaneously, so by 2010 there should be little reason not to go with a 64-bit OS if you can.

I expect the core OS to be 64bit, so it can enjoy all the benefits that gives to performence. While running 32bit apps, and even drivers on the hypervisor for backwards compatibility.

I believe the hypervisor is being written for 64-bit platforms only.

[freak_power]

I personally don't run 64-bit because I don't have such a processor. But you don't need to have applications designed for 64-bit to take advantage of it. Perhaps you want the advanced security technologies you can only get in the 64-bit systems (Patchguard, anyone?) or maybe you're a heavy multitasker who needs to use more than 4GB of RAM. With the advent of Vista, it seems that hardware and software manufacturers alike are slowly starting to release 64-bit compatible software and drivers simultaneously, so by 2010 there should be little reason not to go with a 64-bit OS if you can.

I believe the hypervisor is being written for 64-bit platforms only.

Very true. Vista X64 will run any 32bit app fine as long as the 32bit app provides 64bit drivers if app use any drives.

[Mr. Dee]

Very true. Vista X64 will run any 32bit app fine as long as the 32bit app provides 64bit drivers if app use any drives.

Here is some food for thought for the naive person who said 4 GBs of RAM is mainstream now in PCs.

In its simplest sense, 64-bit hardware allows a system to take advantage of more than 4GB of memory, the theoretical addressing limit of 32-bit systems. There are other performance advantages, but that's the main one.

But at present, putting more than 4GB of memory into a PC is a very expensive proposition. While that's starting to change, even today it's still pretty unusual for a PC to ship with more than 2GBs of memory.

Almost 90 percent of notebooks, and 73 percent of desktops, are bought by U.S. retail customers with either 1GB or 2GB of memory, according to CurrentAnalysisWest. Just over 15 percent of desktops come with 3GB, but desktops and notebooks with 4GB barely register on the needle.

Some gamers and scientific-computing professionals are already starting to push up against that limit, McCarron said. And as DRAM prices decline, 4GB of memory will become more common as a default option, he said.

So the hardware needed for a 64-bit world is getting close. The software, however, remains rare.

Microsoft released a 64-bit edition of Windows XP in 2005, but few people use it. Apple's Tiger operating system is able to address more than 4GBs of memory when run on 64-bit chips, but it's not a full 64-bit operating system the way Leopard will be.

And although Windows Vista is available in 64-bit versions, retail PCs are mostly sold with the 32-bit version of the operating system. Vista Ultimate comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions if you buy the boxed copy, but any other edition of Vista requires you to order the extra DVD from Microsoft an additional fee if you want the 64-bit version.

It's hard to estimate how many 64-bit users there are, Microsoft says, but it acknowledges that most mainstream PC users, and even many enthusiasts, have little reason to go 64-bit, for now. Even the next version of Windows, scheduled for the end of the decade, will arrive in both 64-bit and 32-bit editions, suggesting that Microsoft isn't prepared to fully commit to a 64-bit world this decade.

The 64-bit driver situation is improving for Vista systems. Thanks to years of work--and the delay in consumer adoption--64-bit driver coverage is actually pretty high considering there are few actual users of the 64-bit operating systems, according to Microsoft.

"The real issue that's in front of us around broad usage of 64-bit comes back to the applications," he said. "It's a little bit of a chicken and egg kind of thing. There aren't a lot of mainstream 64-bit capable apps yet."

Read the rest here

64-Bit Windows won't be killing 32-bit systems anytime soon, not in 2008 or in 2010 - so get over yourselves. Even Microsoft and Apple admits it.

[SharpGreen]

Yes, I do have latest and greatest because I'm not a moron who plays Solitaire and reads email. Visual Studio 2005 simply kills Pentium 4 under Windows XP, not to mention Windows Vista.

Are you sure about that? I regularly have 3-4 instances of VS2005, plus a Virtual Machine running on my P4 Windows Vista machine, and its anything but slow.

[SnowRanger13]

I would think by 2009-2010 64bit only would be ready, oh well...

If they want to support 32bit still I guess that is their choice but I hope it is like when you buy it in the store you get the 64bit DVD and have to mail in for the 32bit DVD. They already do this for Vista only they have 32bit and you mail in for 64bit.

This would help push 64bit mainstream

Edit: a lot of people are saying how they have 32bit processors and don't plan to upgrade your computer for a long time, well thats cool but are you really going to run what ever OS comes out in 2010? Lots of people already complain about Vistas requirements I'm sure Windows7 requirements wont be pretty. By the time Windows7 comes out Vista will have at least SP1 good chance well see SP2 or higher by that time, Vista will probably be a good OS choice for many then. I'm sure most people that are happy using a 32bit processor will also be happy using XP SP3 or Vista with a few SPs.

Just like the US and Canadian government are enforcing TV signals to all be Digital (is it just digital or is it HD too? I forget) so that technology moves forward I think the same thing should be done with 64bit.

Edited August 9, 2007 by cloudstrife13

[PGHammer]

Here is some food for thought for the naive person who said 4 GBs of RAM is mainstream now in PCs.

Read the rest here

64-Bit Windows won't be killing 32-bit systems anytime soon, not in 2008 or in 2010 - so get over yourselves. Even Microsoft and Apple admits it.

However, notice that users are often *not* purchasing systems with a full loadout of RAM. This has been the case since Windows *NT* (3.1, that is) went live; the OEMs (Dell and HP in particular) feed into this by advertising a system with a low-ball price (never mind that system has as little RAM as they can get away with). I have recommended (as a floor) 1 GB of RAM for the past seven years (note that the recommendation goes back to when Windows 2000 Professional shipped, and predates Windows ME); starting this year, I have moved the floor to 2 GB (amazingly, not due to Windows Vista, but due to falling prices for desktop memory). There is another reason to seriously start considering Windows in the X64 *flavor*: the 4 GB ceiling for x86 system also includes video RAM, and while 256 MB is the new floor, 512 MB (and above) is becoming the default; throw in SLI/CrossFire, and video memory loadouts of a gigabyte or greater are far from uncommon. (A dual-8800GTS 640MB SLI rig chews up 1.3 GB of video RAM address lines; that means that you can only add 2.6 GB of *desktop RAM* before running into that 4 GB ceiling. The same configuration with the smaller 320 MB version lets you get to 3 GB; but then you're done. Moving up to the 8800GTX, or if you're really loaded, dual 8800 Ultras in SLI? Then you can add a mere 2.4 GB of desktop memory before impact. Suddenly that *ceiling* looks awfully low, doesn't it?)

However, there is one group of applications on a lot of desks that can use all the RAM you can feed it (and it's not Vista): it's any application that can burn/trascode/edit video, and one of the favorites to do such for Windows (all versions) is *Nero*. While most of Nero is RAM-thrifty, the video editing/transcoding portion (like most such applications) will use every bit of desktop RAM available to it. This is, in fact, the other driver to why I increased my recommended loadout floor to 2 GB (and also why I am starting to seriously look at Windows in X64, especially Vista X64, as I am running Ultimate X86 today).

[PGHammer]

I don't want to be rude but you 3.2 P4 is a crap...by any means.Dude they can't even upgrade to Windows Vista, and what makes you think that Windows 7 is gonna run better then Vista and have better compatibility. By the time Windows 7 is released those computers will be in a garbage can.

Can't upgrade to Vista? Excuse me, but what exactly are you smoking? I have a P4 (Northwood-C, at that) that a mere 2.6 GHz (and overclocked to only 2.9) and I run Vista Ultimate (X86) today, and have snce before it shipped (in fact, since it shipped, I've been running it as primary OS). My *mom* has a Celeron 2.4 (Dell Dimension 2400C) with 512 MB of RAM, integrated graphics, etc; she is also running Vista Ultimate (x86) today. She runs AOL and some productivity applications (mostly Word) on her Dell, while I run Word, Outlook, Web surf, and even game (everything from Quake3Arena to SupCom) on my custom-built mid-tower. I have 1.5 GB (compared to my Mom's 512 MB), and I'm looking to replace the two 256 MB sticks with 1 GB sticks (doubling the desktop memory to 3 GB). *That* puts me within half a gigabyte of the X86 hard 4 GB ceiling (and the Northwood-C is *not* X64-capable); hence it would put me in a Rather Sticky Situation. (My graphics card is an ATI X1650 PRO with 512 MB of RAM.)

For that reason, X64 is looming Rather Large on my near-to-immediate-horizon; in short, before Windows "7" ships. Driver issues are a concern, application compatibility is a concern, and that's not escapable.

[Max Veteran]

The 386 processor was the first home PC 32-bit processor distributed in 1986. In 1995, Windows 95 was the first 32-bit Microsoft OS. Thats 9 years from the processor introduction to the operating system software running full 32-bit.

Therefore, in thoery, the first practical 64-bit processor was the AMD Athlon64, introduced in 2003. In 2012 theoretically, we should see a 64-bit Windows leading the way. It would make sense to keep the 32-bit stuff for Windows Seven, but for the one after that it should be ditched.

[TheNay]

If 4GB Ram becomes standard and it will within a year or two, won't we all need 64bit then?

[1Frothy]

If 4GB Ram becomes standard and it will within a year or two, won't we all need 64bit then?

4GB RAM should be the standard for new PC's in 2008.

<- been on 4GB RAM since Vista Beta 2.

[chrispinto]

4GB RAM should be the standard for new PC's in 2008.

<- been on 4GB RAM since Vista Beta 2.

Gotta love 4 gig of ram for OS testing!

[Prizm]

I'm not sure how Microsoft gets version 7 from this?

Windows 3.1/3.11

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows ME

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Windows 7 (shouldn't it be 9? Not to mention Windows 2000/2003)

Also, Steve Jobs might be a jerk, but Microsoft could take some pointers from him:

"Screw you guys, we're changing the Nano to something totally different. Too bad if you just bought one a week ago." "Oh, and we're dropping the IPhone by $200. K thx bye."

That's what Microsoft needs to do when it comes to 64-bit. Grow some balls and say "Screw you guys, this is the future, deal with it. If your current crappy 32-bit program doesn't work with 64-bit, then find another one."

Enough with this p**s-farting around trying to make everything compatible with 10 year old programs. I like Vista, but it could've been absolutely amazing if it wasn't trying to be backwards-compatible with everything.

Prizm

[WooSH]

^ they go by build numbers. Windows Vista RTM 6000 < and every patch/revision is a 6120, 6175, 6230...so Build 7000 is Windows "7"

also just count how many are on your list, not count the ones before 3.11, i see seven listed. hence Windows "7". awesome stuff right?

[0sit0]

Windows XP was 2600... :p i dont think it goes by build numbers.

[Seventh Son]

I'm not sure how Microsoft gets version 7 from this?

Windows 3.1/3.11

Windows 95 = 4.0

Windows 98 = 4.1

Windows 2000 = NT 5.0

Windows ME = 4.9

Windows XP = NT 5.1 (although not called NT anymore)

Windows Server 2003 = NT 5.2

Windows Vista = NT 6.0

Hence Windows 7