ATL/COM is still Win32. You're confusing application frameworks with actual widget libraries methinks. Anything in COM is still going to end up using Win32 (AKA: GDI).
Eh? QT, GTK and the others listed are literally different GUI frameworks. Win32, MFC and WinForms are all Win32. Avalon is new for Longhorn (and now for Windows XP it seems) but it's still in beta (read: it's irrelevant).
If it bothers them so much, and it seems robots.txt isn't used for News, then why didn't they simply block all connections coming from Google (or, at least, go back in their logs and see which addresses the bot comes from)?
Unfortunately Borland isn't the way forward either. Delphi 8 shipped as a.NET-only product, and while Delphi 2005 finally shipped with a new Win32 version, many at Borland have said that a move to Win64 isn't in the cards.
My feeling is that they'll only continue to support the Win32 version until they believe enough people have moved to the.NET version and then you can kiss the native code gen goodbye.
No, the real solution for VB coders looking for native apps and not MSIL crap is to move towards C/C++. Even Microsoft is offering 64-bit versions of their C++ compiler in Whidbey/VS2005 (VS2005 will ship not only with an AMD64 C++ compiler but also with an IA64 (Itanium) C++ compiler; previously all you got was an x86 compiler).
As someone who's never read it, it sounds from your description like there isn't any story whatsoever. Surely there's something to it other than just notes? Is there enough of a story there to even make one movie out of it?
I think they got tired of people writing their own Photoshop clones and emulating the plugin API and hurting their business. I can't blame them, but I agree, the way it works now is a lot less friendly than just downloading the SDK without having to justify your need for it (which is the way it is with the other Adobe SDK's-- it's a simple download to grab them).
You can get it for free. I did. You just signup on their site, send them a reason why you need it, and they send you a note back saying you have access.
It took all of a day or two to get a response. And then the download links worked like a charm.
The worst part is, at least with WinForms, not all of the functionality is exposed that you can acquire under native Win32/Win64. You get just the basics, and if you want more you're stuck authoring your own control or buying controls from a 3rd party vendor.
Drinking a soft drink actually serves some purpose. Downloading a ring tone, OTOH, doesn't. After I finish my drink I'm likely either not thirsty or a lot less thirsty. After you download your ring tone you're still the same hungry/thirsty/etc. person you were before.
$1 per song sounds OK because it's at that magical price point where most people will just say to themselves "Ahh, it's just a buck". The thing is, $1 per song is a bad deal. Let's assume the average number of tracks (songs) per CD is 12. If you wanted to get the full CD, that's $12. Except now you're getting it in some lossy format (AAC/MP3/WMA) that may be DRM'd (I'm thinking of other online music retailers like Wal-Mart, which I think uses Windows Media Audio (not sure if it's DRM'd or not)).
I know that not everyone wants every track, but when you're getting it in a lower quality format and at your own expense/time (bandwidth/time taken to download) $1 is a bit of a rip off.
If anything, the price should be dropping to $0.50 or $0.75. That'd actually encourage people like me to use these online services. And you'd think the music industry would like it because it's less physical content they have to manufacture and ship out to stores.
Hiking the prices just goes to show people that they can't trust the music industry, and that any trust that was fostered was misplaced.
In other words, the Constitution would mean the authors having exclusive rights. In other words, if they don't want you to have the right to download it, you don't have the right to download it. Not 'you can't download it unless you really really want to and think you deserve it for free because those evil artists make too much money anyway', but 'you can't download it'. Full stop. End of discussion. QED.
Bzzt. Wrong. Try again, and this time quote the whole thing instead of taking it out of context. Here, I'll help you (emphasis mine):
"The Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - US Constitution, I.8.8
Notice that it doesn't say "The Congress shall have Power To and is Required To... [etc.]". Just because authority is given to Congress to promote arts and science doesn't mean Copyright is the be all, end all solution. There are other ways to promote arts and science besides providing monopolies over thought.
Copyright, in it's current perverted form, harms creativity more than it helps.
That damn government, giving people full rights over their own creations. I wish we lived in an anarchy where I could take someone else's movie that they'd paid millions to make, then run an empire of shops nationwide selling the DVD for a tenth of the normal cost.
Nah. Instead of people creating art like it was a commodity worth trading, people would create art for the sheer joy of it. Technology would still continue to be both profitable and innovative since patents would still exist presumably. (And those are at least half-way reasonable, lasting only, IIRC, 11 years or something. Copyright's up to, what, life of the author + 70 years? How's the public good served by that?).
This should be completely legal, otherwise my rights are being violated.
In a way they are-- you're being told you can't do something with your own bandwidth and computer that you paid for. You're not going out and shooting someone with a gun. You're not walking into a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart and walking out with merchandise. You're taking ideas, thoughts, art and moving it about in a digital fashion. Why should that be illegal?
The paradigm behind copyright law is antiquated and needs to be abandoned, or, severly curtailed. Laws like the DMCA are just desperate attempts to maintain the status quo in the face of technological innovation that makes copyright irrelevant.
If someone doesn't like this law, they can move to a country that doesn't have such laws (or run for government and try and have the law changed). If you don't want to be punished, do something about it that doesn't involve breaking the law.
Sorry, that just doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned someone pirating movies/music/whatever is engaging in passive resistance. Telling people to "run for office and change the laws," "move to another country," etc. just doesn't work.
Let's assume you did run for office. You're already in a losing proposition because of our two-party system. Then there's the voters. For some reason people in this country are extremely greedy-- the people I've talked to have narrow visions of copyright law. They seem to think they have an equal chance of "making it big" and they want these laws around to help them become millionaires who live the good life. The sad fact is, most "stars" are manufactured. Just look at the Spice Girls for a relatively recent example.
But let's assume you actually manage to get elected. Now you're in a Legislature with a bunch of other Senators/Represenatives who have all had contributions made to them by the MPAA/RIAA/BSA. Do you honestly expect any bill to make it into full debate? Let alone pass? Even if it does make it, it's likely to be done on a voice vote (just as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was) which keeps the people who vote anonymous in the public record.
And even if you somehow, magically, get past that, there's the Berne Convention and international organizations which would, very likely, take out their frustrations on you in the form of tariffs or other such economic warfare if you didn't re-enact the laws.
No, those are totally unreasonable and very unlikely to ever work. The only thing that'd work would be if the government was overthrown by force or the laws that affect our legislature were changed to disallow corporate election contributions, disallow the filthy rich from running for office and using all of their personal wealth to campaign with.
Since those aren't likely, that leaves passive resistance like just ignoring the laws and hoping for the best.
Why live under tyranny when your life is so short as it is anyways?
While I routinely walk out the door with my product in hand (and if it trips those alarm arches at doorways I usually keep walking), I've been thinking it's not such a bright idea. From what I've heard the rent-a-cops that work retail stores are starting to carry tasers, and while I'm sure 99.9% of people don't have any problem being zapped by one, I'd hate to be one of the 0.1% that die or have severe physical complications because of it. Especially over a petty DVD/toaster/etc.
With that in mind, I think they need to have reasonable cause before zapping you, so keep walking, but don't resist if they insist on getting physical or begin making threats. Then you've got them on the hook not just for false imprisonment, but also threatening assault and/or intimidation (Washington State has a law on the books for unlawful intimidation/threats IIRC, and I imagine other states do as well).
If you look at some of the other tests (eg, the Worms 2 test), you would see that something called SBC was often both faster than RAR and able to produce smaller files...
Sure, but now take a look at the differences between RAR and WinZIP, then between RAR and SBC (overall compression ratio in paranthesis)--
9,236,385 (45.6%) WinZip
8,462,061 (50.1%) RAR32
8,236,228 (51.5%) SBC
There's not nearly as pronounced of a difference going from RAR to SBC as there was going from ZIP to RAR.
I'm sure in a few years 7zip will take over, so don't take this as being some endorsement of RAR as the ultimate compression method ever.:P I just don't see it going away for awhile since it meets the "it's good enough" standard.
You'd rather let the protocol do all the work? What "work" is there for you to do with "hundreds of tiny files"? You just right-click and extract. The thing is, if there's a problem that your wonder-protocol missed, it's isolated to one (or a handful) of individual files which you can then go back and get individually. On the other hand, if you're dealing with an ISO, BIN/CUE or AVI, you'll either have to redownload the whole thing or find a way to somehow get the bits that are wrong, then re-merge them back into your download at the point needed.
I actually did this back in the BBS days because some moron, probably with the same mindset as you, insisted on uploading some 400MB file to a BBS instead of uploading the original scene release-- turns out there was an error from line noise midway through the file. How did I solve it?
I wrote two simple utility programs:
The first one made an empty file of any size (file was filled with 0's). I used this one to create a blank dummy file so I could do a Z-Modem resume at the point where the corruption occurred (so I wouldn't have to redownload everything up to that point to get the bad data).
The second one took data from one file at a specific offset, then a specific amount of that data into another file at that same offset.
With those two apps I managed to save myself from having to re-get the whole mess.
This was something I could have avoided if the moron had used RAR and split it up.
BS. In this day and age of high speed internet this is not relevent. Especially while using torrent files. It really wasn't ever relevent during the modem/bbs days. Z-modem had resume downloads and everyone used it. No need for rar then.
Clearly you've never experienced line noise. Me, personally, if I was downloading something back in the BBS days and I had a bit of line noise I'd rather be able to download another smaller RAR piece than have to redownload the whole thing. Z-Modem wouldn't have done squat in that situation (which was so common that *drumroll please* this is why people doing this began distributing things this way). As for as BitTorrent goes, sure, it's a lot better at catching errors and correcting them, but it's not flawless. You're still better off with RAR+SFV plus BitTorrent doing it's MD5 checks than with just BitTorrent.
Again not relevent. If you are taking the time to d/l instead of actually buy something why the hell would you care if it was complete? As long as its not infected (which you just scan it to find out) and works then who cares.
Yes, who cares if you got the app but no documentation to go with it. It's all greek to you, obviously!
Torrent files and high speed internet trumps this one too. Another not relevent "arguement".
No, Torrent files and high speed internet don't trump that point. It's rare when a torrent will fully saturate your download. And since many BitTorrent downloaders allow you to tag individual files in a torrent, you can mark RAR's you're getting from the torrent then unmark RAR's you're getting from another source (so you can fully saturate your connection).
That site listed in a thoughtful manner all the reasons why you'd want to use RAR. If you choose to ignore it because you think you know better (hint: you don't or the scene wouldn't be using split RAR's), that's your perogative. But at least a no nothing like yourself isn't responsible for scene releases or scene rules.
It doesn't really matter how you download the files. If you get disconnected it's a lot better to have a partial RAR set than to have to rely on your download apps ability to resume (e.g. - eDonkey, BitTorrent, etc). The other problem with sending raw files (.avi,.iso,.bin) is that, if an undetected error manages to get through your download you'll have a difficult, if not impossible, time figuring out how to get just the portion of the file you need to fix it.
With RAR's you can just redownload the part that's causing problems.
In the ratio of compression:time RAR is pretty much the best. In the Executable test, the "best" compressor took 10 times as long to compress as RAR did (30 seconds vs. 340 seconds or so).
It's not just about the ultimate file size.
FWIW, I do agree that there are better compression systems out today, but none of them are as widespread as RAR is. Hopefully that'll change over time.
I can't stand rar files. Its like saying "lets use this archive format that is different just because we want to be different."
LOL, yes, this is exactly why I use RAR, honestly! Jesus you're dumb.
Zip has been a standard for a long long time now, so what is the point in archiving in something completely different that then makes people go out and download and install yet another piece of software to have loaded in memory to do the same thing zip does.
You know, the horse and carriage has been a standard for a long long time now, so what is the point in getting around in something totally faster that then makes people go out and buy something just like it when in the end it does the same thing as that horse and carriage.
Clue: WinRAR compresses better, is more secure, and is a heck of a lot more feature rich than WinZIP. WinZIP is, to put it nicely, a piece of shit. And ZIP is outdated compared to RAR and 7-Zip (be it compression or security).
What annoys me even more is when you download a movie file and someone rar's it up into a million different pieces. You aren't compressing it any and we aren't all on 14.4 modems anymore. Just make it a freaking iso or bin file and be done with it. Don't even get me started about people who rip cd's to mp3 but don't bother to run them through the online system to have it automatically assign cd and track titles. People are freaking lazy. If you are going to do something illegal like that at least do a good job and do it completely and correctly.
Your newbieness truly knows no bounds. Please educate yourself, don't worry, we'll all wait:
ZIP files are inherently insecure (if you rely on the password protection anyways). RAR files are much more secure. Just try using one of those brute-force password cracking apps on a RAR file-- it takes significantly longer to brute force a RAR than a ZIP.
Right, and the other thing to keep in mind is that these 64-bit extensions also double the number of general purpose registers (GPRs) available to user code. Depending upon the ABI of your system (*nix vs. Win64) you could have as many as 4-6 additional scratch registers for use (either for the 64-bit compiler to utilize or for you to utilize in 64-bit assembly code).
Under 32-bit processors you get these registers (all 32-bit of course):
EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, ESP, EBP (8 total)
Under 64-bit processors you get these registers (all 64-bit of course):
What's more, you can now address the low byte of all the registers (previously you could only address the low byte of the 4 basic registers-- AL, BL, CL, DL). E.G. - SIL, DIL, BPL, SPL, R8B - R15B. The new registers (R8 - R15) are also word (R8W - R15W) and doubleword (R8D - R15D) addressable.
So.. yeah. Good stuff, plenty of opportunities for optimization by compilers and low level programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
ATL/COM is still Win32. You're confusing application frameworks with actual widget libraries methinks. Anything in COM is still going to end up using Win32 (AKA: GDI).
Eh? QT, GTK and the others listed are literally different GUI frameworks. Win32, MFC and WinForms are all Win32. Avalon is new for Longhorn (and now for Windows XP it seems) but it's still in beta (read: it's irrelevant).
Thunder? How would you send power over soundwaves? Or did you mean lightning? :P
If it bothers them so much, and it seems robots.txt isn't used for News, then why didn't they simply block all connections coming from Google (or, at least, go back in their logs and see which addresses the bot comes from)?
I will be amused when they lose this though.
Unfortunately Borland isn't the way forward either. Delphi 8 shipped as a .NET-only product, and while Delphi 2005 finally shipped with a new Win32 version, many at Borland have said that a move to Win64 isn't in the cards.
.NET version and then you can kiss the native code gen goodbye.
My feeling is that they'll only continue to support the Win32 version until they believe enough people have moved to the
No, the real solution for VB coders looking for native apps and not MSIL crap is to move towards C/C++. Even Microsoft is offering 64-bit versions of their C++ compiler in Whidbey/VS2005 (VS2005 will ship not only with an AMD64 C++ compiler but also with an IA64 (Itanium) C++ compiler; previously all you got was an x86 compiler).
As someone who's never read it, it sounds from your description like there isn't any story whatsoever. Surely there's something to it other than just notes? Is there enough of a story there to even make one movie out of it?
I think they got tired of people writing their own Photoshop clones and emulating the plugin API and hurting their business. I can't blame them, but I agree, the way it works now is a lot less friendly than just downloading the SDK without having to justify your need for it (which is the way it is with the other Adobe SDK's-- it's a simple download to grab them).
Wouldn't the LGPL have made more sense for it?
You can get it for free. I did. You just signup on their site, send them a reason why you need it, and they send you a note back saying you have access.
It took all of a day or two to get a response. And then the download links worked like a charm.
The worst part is, at least with WinForms, not all of the functionality is exposed that you can acquire under native Win32/Win64. You get just the basics, and if you want more you're stuck authoring your own control or buying controls from a 3rd party vendor.
It sucks.
Drinking a soft drink actually serves some purpose. Downloading a ring tone, OTOH, doesn't. After I finish my drink I'm likely either not thirsty or a lot less thirsty. After you download your ring tone you're still the same hungry/thirsty/etc. person you were before.
Hence your argument doesn't work.
$1 per song sounds OK because it's at that magical price point where most people will just say to themselves "Ahh, it's just a buck". The thing is, $1 per song is a bad deal. Let's assume the average number of tracks (songs) per CD is 12. If you wanted to get the full CD, that's $12. Except now you're getting it in some lossy format (AAC/MP3/WMA) that may be DRM'd (I'm thinking of other online music retailers like Wal-Mart, which I think uses Windows Media Audio (not sure if it's DRM'd or not)).
I know that not everyone wants every track, but when you're getting it in a lower quality format and at your own expense/time (bandwidth/time taken to download) $1 is a bit of a rip off.
If anything, the price should be dropping to $0.50 or $0.75. That'd actually encourage people like me to use these online services. And you'd think the music industry would like it because it's less physical content they have to manufacture and ship out to stores.
Hiking the prices just goes to show people that they can't trust the music industry, and that any trust that was fostered was misplaced.
Bzzt. Wrong. Try again, and this time quote the whole thing instead of taking it out of context. Here, I'll help you (emphasis mine):
Notice that it doesn't say "The Congress shall have Power To and is Required To ... [etc.]". Just because authority is given to Congress to promote arts and science doesn't mean Copyright is the be all, end all solution. There are other ways to promote arts and science besides providing monopolies over thought.
Copyright, in it's current perverted form, harms creativity more than it helps.
Nah. Instead of people creating art like it was a commodity worth trading, people would create art for the sheer joy of it. Technology would still continue to be both profitable and innovative since patents would still exist presumably. (And those are at least half-way reasonable, lasting only, IIRC, 11 years or something. Copyright's up to, what, life of the author + 70 years? How's the public good served by that?).
In a way they are-- you're being told you can't do something with your own bandwidth and computer that you paid for. You're not going out and shooting someone with a gun. You're not walking into a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart and walking out with merchandise. You're taking ideas, thoughts, art and moving it about in a digital fashion. Why should that be illegal?
The paradigm behind copyright law is antiquated and needs to be abandoned, or, severly curtailed. Laws like the DMCA are just desperate attempts to maintain the status quo in the face of technological innovation that makes copyright irrelevant.
Sorry, that just doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned someone pirating movies/music/whatever is engaging in passive resistance. Telling people to "run for office and change the laws," "move to another country," etc. just doesn't work.
Let's assume you did run for office. You're already in a losing proposition because of our two-party system. Then there's the voters. For some reason people in this country are extremely greedy-- the people I've talked to have narrow visions of copyright law. They seem to think they have an equal chance of "making it big" and they want these laws around to help them become millionaires who live the good life. The sad fact is, most "stars" are manufactured. Just look at the Spice Girls for a relatively recent example.
But let's assume you actually manage to get elected. Now you're in a Legislature with a bunch of other Senators/Represenatives who have all had contributions made to them by the MPAA/RIAA/BSA. Do you honestly expect any bill to make it into full debate? Let alone pass? Even if it does make it, it's likely to be done on a voice vote (just as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was) which keeps the people who vote anonymous in the public record.
And even if you somehow, magically, get past that, there's the Berne Convention and international organizations which would, very likely, take out their frustrations on you in the form of tariffs or other such economic warfare if you didn't re-enact the laws.
No, those are totally unreasonable and very unlikely to ever work. The only thing that'd work would be if the government was overthrown by force or the laws that affect our legislature were changed to disallow corporate election contributions, disallow the filthy rich from running for office and using all of their personal wealth to campaign with.
Since those aren't likely, that leaves passive resistance like just ignoring the laws and hoping for the best.
Why live under tyranny when your life is so short as it is anyways?
While I routinely walk out the door with my product in hand (and if it trips those alarm arches at doorways I usually keep walking), I've been thinking it's not such a bright idea. From what I've heard the rent-a-cops that work retail stores are starting to carry tasers, and while I'm sure 99.9% of people don't have any problem being zapped by one, I'd hate to be one of the 0.1% that die or have severe physical complications because of it. Especially over a petty DVD/toaster/etc.
With that in mind, I think they need to have reasonable cause before zapping you, so keep walking, but don't resist if they insist on getting physical or begin making threats. Then you've got them on the hook not just for false imprisonment, but also threatening assault and/or intimidation (Washington State has a law on the books for unlawful intimidation/threats IIRC, and I imagine other states do as well).
Sure, but now take a look at the differences between RAR and WinZIP, then between RAR and SBC (overall compression ratio in paranthesis)--
- 9,236,385 (45.6%) WinZip
- 8,462,061 (50.1%) RAR32
- 8,236,228 (51.5%) SBC
There's not nearly as pronounced of a difference going from RAR to SBC as there was going from ZIP to RAR.I'm sure in a few years 7zip will take over, so don't take this as being some endorsement of RAR as the ultimate compression method ever. :P I just don't see it going away for awhile since it meets the "it's good enough" standard.
I actually did this back in the BBS days because some moron, probably with the same mindset as you, insisted on uploading some 400MB file to a BBS instead of uploading the original scene release-- turns out there was an error from line noise midway through the file. How did I solve it?
I wrote two simple utility programs:
- The first one made an empty file of any size (file was filled with 0's). I used this one to create a blank dummy file so I could do a Z-Modem resume at the point where the corruption occurred (so I wouldn't have to redownload everything up to that point to get the bad data).
- The second one took data from one file at a specific offset, then a specific amount of that data into another file at that same offset.
With those two apps I managed to save myself from having to re-get the whole mess.This was something I could have avoided if the moron had used RAR and split it up.
Clearly you've never experienced line noise. Me, personally, if I was downloading something back in the BBS days and I had a bit of line noise I'd rather be able to download another smaller RAR piece than have to redownload the whole thing. Z-Modem wouldn't have done squat in that situation (which was so common that *drumroll please* this is why people doing this began distributing things this way). As for as BitTorrent goes, sure, it's a lot better at catching errors and correcting them, but it's not flawless. You're still better off with RAR+SFV plus BitTorrent doing it's MD5 checks than with just BitTorrent.
Yes, who cares if you got the app but no documentation to go with it. It's all greek to you, obviously!
No, Torrent files and high speed internet don't trump that point. It's rare when a torrent will fully saturate your download. And since many BitTorrent downloaders allow you to tag individual files in a torrent, you can mark RAR's you're getting from the torrent then unmark RAR's you're getting from another source (so you can fully saturate your connection).
That site listed in a thoughtful manner all the reasons why you'd want to use RAR. If you choose to ignore it because you think you know better (hint: you don't or the scene wouldn't be using split RAR's), that's your perogative. But at least a no nothing like yourself isn't responsible for scene releases or scene rules.
It doesn't really matter how you download the files. If you get disconnected it's a lot better to have a partial RAR set than to have to rely on your download apps ability to resume (e.g. - eDonkey, BitTorrent, etc). The other problem with sending raw files (.avi, .iso, .bin) is that, if an undetected error manages to get through your download you'll have a difficult, if not impossible, time figuring out how to get just the portion of the file you need to fix it.
With RAR's you can just redownload the part that's causing problems.
In the ratio of compression:time RAR is pretty much the best. In the Executable test, the "best" compressor took 10 times as long to compress as RAR did (30 seconds vs. 340 seconds or so).
It's not just about the ultimate file size.
FWIW, I do agree that there are better compression systems out today, but none of them are as widespread as RAR is. Hopefully that'll change over time.
Don't worry... RAR archives hate you back twice as much.
LOL, yes, this is exactly why I use RAR, honestly! Jesus you're dumb.
You know, the horse and carriage has been a standard for a long long time now, so what is the point in getting around in something totally faster that then makes people go out and buy something just like it when in the end it does the same thing as that horse and carriage.
Clue: WinRAR compresses better, is more secure, and is a heck of a lot more feature rich than WinZIP. WinZIP is, to put it nicely, a piece of shit. And ZIP is outdated compared to RAR and 7-Zip (be it compression or security).
Your newbieness truly knows no bounds. Please educate yourself, don't worry, we'll all wait:
Now, STFU and sit.
ZIP files are inherently insecure (if you rely on the password protection anyways). RAR files are much more secure. Just try using one of those brute-force password cracking apps on a RAR file-- it takes significantly longer to brute force a RAR than a ZIP.
Right, and the other thing to keep in mind is that these 64-bit extensions also double the number of general purpose registers (GPRs) available to user code. Depending upon the ABI of your system (*nix vs. Win64) you could have as many as 4-6 additional scratch registers for use (either for the 64-bit compiler to utilize or for you to utilize in 64-bit assembly code).
Under 32-bit processors you get these registers (all 32-bit of course):
EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, ESP, EBP (8 total)
Under 64-bit processors you get these registers (all 64-bit of course):
RAX, RBX, RCX, RDX, RSI, RDI, RSP, RBP, R8 - R15 (16 total)
What's more, you can now address the low byte of all the registers (previously you could only address the low byte of the 4 basic registers-- AL, BL, CL, DL). E.G. - SIL, DIL, BPL, SPL, R8B - R15B. The new registers (R8 - R15) are also word (R8W - R15W) and doubleword (R8D - R15D) addressable.
So.. yeah. Good stuff, plenty of opportunities for optimization by compilers and low level programmers.