, but for the most part it is Vista revisited. And they are not releasing it as SP2 because they want to make money - and historically, service packs have been released free of charge
Good theory, but it doesn't fit reality...
1) Vista SP2 is in beta, and it also improves performance of Vista and reduces Vista's HD space required. Also new Bluetooth in SP2, fixes, etc. So if you are looking for SP2, there really is one with normal SP2 level of features. (SP2 has enough features, Apple would put up a 300 Features list and sell it to you.)
2) Windows 7 has more 'new features' and 'architectural changes' that makes it a full OS update - more of an update than you can find from OS X 10.4 to 10.5 for example. In the Linux world it would merit a.x update at the very least if you look at just the kernel level changes and optimiziations.
I could recite a full list of things from the new scheduler supporting at minimum 64 CPUs with little overhead that you usually get from SMP and tons of other kernel and multi-layer changes, or we could talk about all the user level changes like the taskbar new applications and tools, or go through a very long list of new OS API sets for developers with tons of features in these APIs that WILL NOT work on Vista, as Vista does not have the technology to handle it.
We could talk about the updates from the Vista systems to the Win7 systems(Networking, Sound, Video) - i.e. Audio stack has new low latency features with more advanced inline effects processing, and Video looks like Vista, but it moves to WDDM 1.1 and can even do software rendering of DirectX content for the first time in MS history.
There is a lot under the Windows7 hood.
However if want a 'test' to see if it really is just Vista SP2, look at these things that make it break off a long way from a SP.
1) Unlike Vista you can't upgrade from XP to Win7. (Users have to use the migration Wizard to transfer programs and user files.) MS would have loved to left it so you could upgrade from XP, but the changes in Win7 are so numerous it would require a complete rewrite of the migration, update part of the install process. Even the way it handles upgrading from Vista, is more of an advanced 'migration tool' rather than just slipping in the new binaries.
2) If MS were to take Beta 1 and list the feature or changes on the scale that Apple did with their '300 features' for leopard, there are already probably 7500 items MS could list.
Win7 is truly NOT just a SP nor an Apple level of OS update, and does merit a full version release.
If you want to compare it to previous Windows releases it is more like Windows NT 3.51 to Windows NT 4.0. Windows NT 3.51 moved Win32 to the newest level and could even run the NT 4.0 Shell, so it was a major architecture shift from 3.1, but it took NT 4.0 to get the User level realization of these features available, along with another reoptimization and revamp of the entire OS in the same release process. And NT 4.0 brought a lot of big new features beyond just the updated Win32 Explorer, starting from the Video driver to adding in big features likes IIS and Terminal Services, etc.
I know it is easy to compare Win7 as a 'newer' Vista, as it does build on the technologies MS shoved out the door in Vista, but that is NOT ALL it is, and there is where the reality of the argument fails.
, the sooner we can start amassing a huge catalog of 64 bit drivers that will rival what already exists in the 32 bit world.
I agree, but this is already happening more than most people realize.
In the Windows world for example...
With Vista MS now requires that all MFRs provide 64bit drivers in addition to 32bit drivers to get MS Hardware Logo/Approval, which is important and has forced virtually all new hardware since Vista was released to have a 64bit driver.
There is also the Windows Logo/Approval for Applications, which means that even if the MFR doesn't provide a native 64bit application, the 32bit version must work on Vista x64. This eliminates the the Applicaitons that try to use 32bit only services/drivers as a part of the application, as they must also put out a 64bit version of the lower components.
If you look at even freeware or OSS windows projects like Daemon tools, you will notice even they provide native 64bit versions and drivers, even if the 64bit drivers are MS Certified, they are at least available.
A bit of trivia that helps put this in perspective. Windows Vista x64 has more hardware drivers available for it than Windows XP 32bit does.
Yes, this sounds 'out there', but it is true, and means that MS is getting the 64bit movement going better than most people realize. (Of course there are older devices that just don't have 64bit drivers, but you will find this offset by hardware that is Vista only and has 64bit drivers available.)
So, if MS is making the 64bit drivers and application compatibility happen, while keeping a 32bit version of Vista or Win7 available, why not...?
I still can't believe there will be a 32-bit version
PentiumIII Pentium4 M Pentium4 (pre EMT64 models) Intel Duo (Pre Core 2) Intel Solo Intel Atom (Some Series)
Notice the last couple, I don't think people realize that there are shipping computers today that still have 32bit processors. If you look at computers in the last year you can find everything with some of the Intel Duo or Solo pre-x64 versions, like Mac-Mini etc...
Also there is Windows Embedded that is updated for 7, running full versions of Win7 on things like picture frames and routers. (Yes XP embedded is probably in a device in your house that you don't even realize) - And no this is not CE Embedded.
So why a 32bit version? Because Windows/NT works well on different architectures and ports rather easily, and with the client/server kernel subsystem technology, a Win32/Win64 subsystem model is not hard to maintain along side a standard 32bit version.
I saw a post like this before on here, it was an OS X user first insisting that OS X was 64bit, then after they Wiki'd it, they then came back and said that Snow Leopard would be ONLY 64bit and Apple was superior in moving OS technology to 64bit because it was only 64bit, which also was wrong.
There is no reason MS can't keep a 32bit version around for even another release or two if they want, it isn't rocket science to have the two versions and give people with older computers and older hardware without 64bit drivers something beyond XP, especially when Win7 is showing to be as fast or faster than XP and still keeping all the Vista features.
..but it will be built and delivered for both 64-bit and legacy x86 in the same packages
That was my original point, read the people I was responding to, their whole argument was that Apple was superior because they were the ONLY company that was doing 64bit exclusively. Which is A) Wrong, and B) Insane.
On to the issue of running sub-systems for compatibility, it sounds like you are describing the NT kernel as a version of the Mach kernel, and then denying that any other OS other than NT has the ability to do this
Actually, no...
It appears that you are assuming from my description that I am describing a microkernel, and I'm not, there is quite a difference.
Let's start here...
NT is not a microkernel. NT is NOT a MACH design.
NT uses some microkernel concepts but how it deals with the API abstraction and the unification of the executive kernel makes it rather unique.
It is this abstraction that 'layers off' API sets of the OS into subsystems, and gives NT the ability to run Win32 or Win64 or even BSD, natively on the NT executive kernel. (See Win32 has its own kernel APIs that interface to the NT kernel, etc etc.)
The creator of the MACH kernel works for Microsoft, and has talked about the significant design differences between a MACH kernel and the NT kernel.
He also talks about the flaws in the MACH design, and why he is surprised that people (Like Apple) are still using variants of it on today's hardware.
MACH's creator helped in the design process of NT, and there are specific reasons why NT is not MACH based because of him, just like there are reasons Cutler chose not to use VMS designs, and other *nix gurus of the time working for MS (When MS even owned XENIX) that worked on NT decided to NOT make it a *nix based OS as well.
They knew the good things of their respective designs and the bad things and set out to create a new OS concept that inherently avoided the pitfalls, and also would be extremely extensible to take on new technologies by not locking the kernel to specific OS level API sets.
Their design goal and the result is what I was describing and is an architecture than can natively host different OS API subsystems like Win32 or POSIX or a BSD subsystem on TOP of the NT kernel instead of having these OS APIs in the kernel.
The NT kernel is a client/server hybrid design because it is OS API agnostic when it comes to anything above the NT kernel layers and just interfaces to the respective subsystem and their OS kernel API sets.
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
--
For everyone here that blindly follows ZDNet or other journalist reviews, remember this...
Most of the journalists get free Macs. Apple throws free swag and Macs at journalists at an alarming rate. If you even touch the journalism or publishing industry, you get free Apple products for a reason.
One of best friends works as a sales manager for a semi-small column syndicate, and they offer her a new Mac every six months, and she is just in sales. (And yes they come from Apple, not the publishing companies or syndicates and are given to any employee that will take them in way that make it seem 'acceptable' for even hard core journalists. Thankfully there are a few people that say, "No thank you.")
Remember this the next time you are reading an article and who is behind the articles. Stick to the gamers and 'true' tech sites instead of the Apple swag infested sites. There is a reason the guy at the WSJ or NYT sitting with his new free Mac might write a less than glowing review of something not-Mac.
If you watch 'Colbert', he blatantly makes fun of this aspect of Apple, as everyone in the entertainment and journalism industry knows this; he is just smart enough to use it to get free crap while making fun of it at the same time.
You need to head over to channel9.msdn.com and look up the videos from the Vista Audio System Engineers from 2006/2007.
Then look up the newer videos from the same engineers (2008) that talk about how they were able to use the Vista Audio architecture and use driver polling to reduce latency even further in Windows7.
This is something that would interest you and you might find a bit more respect by what MS's engineers did with Vista and why they redesigned the Vista Audio system the way they did.
(Besides there is no reason a computer audio system of today should not be able to throw a microphone in the middle of the room and dynamically configure the 7.1 surround processing and calculate the proper distance and latencies for each channel to the listener like Vista does.)
The 2008 videos should also give you some hope for Windows7, as it will offer more of the advanced audio processing Vista introduced with really low latency.
(PS The Creative examples of OpenAL and what Creative has been doing with audio are not good examples of what is the 'best' way to handle things. They designed their hardware around some really old audio handling concepts, and specifically rejected the HD audio specifications that Intel and MS were working on. This is what locked their cards to WindowsXP level technology, and is also why OpenAL HAS to bypass the Vista audio stack, because they run in WindowsXP audio modes with no advanced processing other than what Creative provides.)
Investing in EAX and other 'trick' crap was transitional, when Creative should have been working on full multi-channel sound systems, and working with software that is fully aware of the multi-channel system. This IS stuff that should be handled at the OS level like in Vista and not only on the hardware with the OS unaware and unable to use it properly as it was on XP and previous generations.
In Vista, the OS and Games and Applications can send a sound to any of the 8 speakers at any time with calculated latency so it arrives at the right time and even add effects processing to the sound.
This is a lot of sound control available to developers that was never there before Vista, even if it caused growing pains. Also, DX10.1 is the answer to older OpenAL that shoved all the processing to the Audio hardware, as it moves the Vista audio concepts to a more direct hardware assisted path, letting audio hardware get the processing handed off in more circumstances, with the OS still having full control and awareness of the sound environment and capabilities.
It is kind of nice for Vista to know what your audio is, and Windows7 capitalizes on this even further for headsets and alternative audio sources and output devices.
Anyway, check out the videos, you will enjoy them, trust me.
what I'm saying is that while Microsoft has its feet in both 32 and 64bit OSs Apple is trying to move the entire product line
This is the most insane point you keep hitting on that has no merit.
It is not true, Apple is not moving 100% to 64bit any faster than anyone else. Point: iPhone is not 64bit. Get it?
Microsoft supporting 32bit devices (like Apple supporting the iPhone) does not mean they are doing something 'less important'.
Microsoft is moving just as fast to 64bit, and was doing so when Apple was still selling System 9 software that couldn't even do pre-emptive multi-tasking.
By offering a 32bit version for people still running PentiumIII, Pentium4, Solo, and Duo 32bit processors is good for the consumers. There are also 100,000s of thousands of REALLY old devices that don't have new 64bit drivers, and instead of MS telling users to go screw themselves, they provide a way to keep their old crap if they want.
As for CPUs, Many of the Apple Mac are running on 32bit versions of Intel chips. The Duo and Solo are NOT 64bit CPUs, only the Core 2 Duo versions are 64bit.
Do you not realize this?
What is Snow Leopard, if it really is only going to be 64bit based, going to do with these customers that have Intel based hardware that can't process 64bit instructions? (Like Early Notebooks, Mac-Mini, etc...)
These CPU based Mac computers are one or two years old and still being sold.
Holy Geesh batman...
By Microsoft keeping a 32bit desktop version in production only helps consumers, instead of screwing them over for no reason when Microsoft doesn't have to.
It is EASY for Microsoft to maintain both a 64bit and 32bit OS code base, due to the way NT is designed. IT IS NOT EASY FOR APPLE TO DO THIS WITH OS X - THIS IS WHY THEY WON'T DO IT.
I don't think you realize how easy NT works in this regard with different platforms and handling 32bit and 64bit transparently. You do realize that MS compiled a PowerPC G5 Windows 2003 64bit version for the XBox developers back in 2004 right? Even the XBox 360, with a tri-core PowerPC is running a 64bit version of Windows 2003 (NT)... This is not a massive shift for MS like it is for OS X and Apple. NT is far more portable than OS X and OS X kernel technologies.
On NT, the Win32 and Win64 portions of the OS run in subsystems because it is a client/server kernel design, and each subsystem Win32 and Win64 have their own upper level kernels. This is also how you can run BSD on NT in its own subsystem along side Win32 and Win64.
This is NOT something OS X, or 99.9% of OSes in the world can do.
Additionally, Windows Embedded is a version of Windows NT and is updated with Windows7 and is designed to run on very low end chips.
There are more devices and systems out there that Microsoft Supports than one OS on their own hardware like Apple does. Microsoft OSes (Like Windows NT Embedded) run routers and switches to even appliances and devices you probably have in YOUR HOME and don't realize there is a Windows Embedded OS running it.
You have no understanding of the basic OS technologies, yet you are going to continue to insist that by Apple shoving Snow Leopard closer to 64bit they are doing something better than MS or the OSS movement?
This is insane or you are completely clueless about OS architecture with respect to CPU architectures they are running on.
You claim it doesn't matter for the windows world and then pick out a counterexample for an application written in Carbon. You're either deliberately obfuscating the issue or not understanding what's going on.
No Adobe wasn't 'sold' in terms of money, but they were PROMISED that Carbon would move to 64bit to allow their software progression without rewriting it. Or at the very least offer a migration path. Instead they have to fully re-write their entire suite of applications (AGAIN) just to do a 64bit version.
It sucks, but I'm in Montana this week. (Slashdot check the IP if you want. Freaking Bresnan out of Bozeman MT.)
I have homes in San Diego and Reno, and own the company I work for, and funny as it is, I have never been to Seattle or Redmond. I spend a lot of time in Belgium though, does that make me like Dr. Evil?
Microsoft could drop off the earth and Windows could explode into non-existence as far as I personally care... (Actually I might miss my XBox 360 and Halo time with friends, so I might care for a minute or two.)
Here is one.. There are a lot of technical information articles out there about Vista's performance and the RAM threshold. Even if you review MS's own technet their white papers talk about where Vista sucks and where it does well, and the dependence on RAM.
The only benchmark XP SP3 beats Vista is in the synthetic 3DMark, but the games are faster in Vista, showing that 3DMark isn't as accurate as some would like to believe.
If your installation blew chunks it could have been a couple of simple things.
Things like a bad driver (especially if you didn't get the latest from NVIdia), also things like how Vista optimizes itself and the first impressions are usually bad the first day or two.
(Ya MS was really stupid with the OS optimization process in Vista, as it actually waits so many restarts and application loads before things kick in. - Thankfully Win7 doesn't do this, and optimizes during installation and starts with optimization templates even that are working for you when you first see your desktop on the first boot.)
First impressions are important, and MS didn't seem to remember this at all with Vista from the release to even how the OS optimizes the installation.
---
If I was you, wait for the public beta of Win7, and give it a try. Even for an early beta, you will be surprised how well it does, I promise. And if you are keeping Windows around for gaming, you will really like Windows7.
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
And this is SP3 - the fastest XP compared to Vista.
So go on again about how horrible the scheduler is in Vista, I am guessing you don't even know what a scheduler does and especially I know you don't know how it works in NT.
If you want to put your hands over your ears and eyes and keep screaming, "Vista is slower", try clicking your heels together too, it is as likely to make it true and take you to Kansas.
The Vista is slower myths need to stop and the idiocy behind them is really getting annoying.
The question with Snow Leopard is whether it will be 'more' 64bit or a full 64bit OS.
The driver issue is something you don't see Apple talking about even to device MFRs, and if OS X 10.6 was going 64bit, all kernel level drivers will have to be ported to 64bit.
Unless Apple has a grand driver thunking system they are going to try to use 32bit drivers.
It is also possible, Apple is selectively moving kernel portions to 64bit, and leaving the driver interface layer 32bit, and this would be a lot like OS/2 was, as it used 16bit drivers, even though it was a 32bit OS. (And this is one reason for the OS/2 problems with I/O locking and creating system stability far below NT, and more in line with Win3.1.)
I honestly don't know what Apple will end up doing. I have heard almost every story I place here from various sources, as to what they want and are trying to get working.
If they pull out full 64bit and give it the optimizations other 64bit OS enjoy, great for them. Maybe they will run the TV Ads about being the first 64bit Personal Computer again.:)
, however at least there is a clear intent to redress this issue for the client OS within the next few months with the release of snow leopard and that will be the only OS Apple will distribute.
You need to check out how Snow Leopard is built a little better, as it will not be 100% 64bit. It will be 'more' of a hybrid, but still not a full 64bit OS.
Microsoft will undoubtedly have versions of Windows 7 in 32 and 64-bit and by default distribute the 32-bit version. I completely understand why they might do this, I might even be convinced it is in their interest to do that, but I think it holds back the development of the platform in general.
Because it DOESN'T matter in the Windows world. 32bit applications get performance benefits on the 64bit OS. Also if developers want to provide a full 64bit version, it is a simple recompile, you don't have to re-write the application like a lot of people (Adobe for example) find they have to do on OS X. This is why if you want a 64bit version of Adobe software, you need Vistax64, as the development APIs Apple sold Adobe never got moved to 64bit as promised.
All MS API sets(development platforms) move to 64bit, even old 16bit applications can be recompiled as 64bit applications. (You can't do this with System 9 applications, nor even the whole early 32bit transition APIs Apple provided.)
Understand?
Finally Leopard itself does support full 64-bitness, for example Apache on OS X Server is running as a proper 64-bit application. I don't mean to dispute your claims that it remains effectively a 32-bit OS, just that it's not as cut and dried as it might appear.
It isn't cut and dried, but it is a fact.
OS X enables applications to use and execute the 64bit memory addressing flags. However, the application is not running in full 64bit mode beyond the memory space the the execute flag optimizations on the CPU.
For everything the application (Apache in this example) that touches the OS, an OS API, or asks the OS to do, gets processed in 32bit mode. So if Apache asks OS X's kernel for a file from the File System, this is all happening in 32bit. Every API Apache uses that goes through the OS X kernel is processed in 32bit mode - not only in the OS, but the CPU is shifted to 32bit mode to process the call as well.
Understand?
You are defending Apple on something they don't need to be defended on and are more a problem in the industry when it comes to this subject than some 'noble' company.
Do you remember the Apple ads talking about the FIRST 64bit Personal Computer? How ironic that this many years later it still isn't even running a native 64bit OS, where Windows has been doing 64bit versions since the mid 90s. (Yes NT 4.0 versions had 64bit modes and used 48bit addressing space on hardware capable of it, like the DEC Alpha)
Apple is out of their league and making a fool of themselves in the process.
There are some good TechNet articles at Microsoft that would give you specific answers of what happens on Vistax64 with regard to 32bit memory allocation. (The SDK/DDKs will also give you some answers.)
Also check out interviews with NT engineers at channel9.msdn.com.
As for you questions regarding the compiler, yes. If you compile your application for 64bit, optimizations like you describe are handled unless you disable them in the compiler.
However, the things I was talking about in reference to Vistax64 is that running 32bit code on the 64bit OS, gives the OS the ability to make decisions like this on the fly for upper level system RAM (not CPU level optimizations/etc). So on Vista x64, and running your 32bit code, it will execute faster on Vista x64 because the OS is running faster, but also if you are using large chunks of RAM, the 32bit application will get additional boosts by combining 32bit memory chunks into one read/write of 64bit space.
Once you get what you need on what Windows x64 is doing, head over to AMD and read about CPU specific optimizations that happen in the register and cache levels of the CPUs when executing 32bit code.
Even if you stick to 32bit development, your applications get benefits of Vista x64.
---
Side Note for others: Anyone here that installs Windows for gaming, if you have 2GB of RAM, grab the 64bit version of Vista, you will easily get 15% more performance out of your games over Vista x32 and XP.
And if you play MMOs, your zone and load times in either version of Vista will make you never want to touch XP again as it is often a 10x to 20x difference due to SuperFetch.
Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine
Sadly, as much as the SlashDot world not like to believe, this is accurate.
If you have 1GB of RAM even on old hardware, Vista is as fast as XP, as the extra RAM offsets the Vista features overhead and Superfetch and other tricks of Vista help make up performance gains.
With 2GB of RAM, Vista will be faster, even if you have a 800mzh PIII and a 1998 ATI video card.
Vista or should we say the NT kernel in Vista is not slow or bloated, it is the extra features that Vista is doing that consumes RAM that offsets its performance gains over XP. (Search Engine, etc.)
The CPU cycles for the Vista features are light, it is all about RAM. Just like with virtually every Windows and known OS update in history, they want more RAM for the features they add.
- Even for Leopard to perform as fast as Tiger you need 1GB of RAM, which is funny considering Apple was making fun of Vista for the exact same reason.
Here is how it works:
512MB RAM - XP > Vista 1GB RAM - XP = Vista 1.5GB+ RAM - Vista > XP
Windows7 so far is showing that even on 512MB is faster than XP in many cases, which is the result of the event based service manager, that unloads processes/services when not needed and saves RAM.
An example on a running test system with 3Ghz P4 and 1GB RAM: Vista 41% - OS Consumed RAM Win7 20% - OS Consumed RAM
See how that might help the Vista RAM overhead and put Win7 back in line with XP?
PS And on this test system Vista is faster than XP - even in gaming with a Geforce 5600 video card.
Good question, and Apple would be one of the companies to ask first, being that OS X is still 32bit and even the kernel of Snow Leopard will still be 32bit.
The problem with moving to 64bit for companies like Apple and even in the OSS world is drivers. If Apple were to move to a real 64bit kernel, it would require new drivers for everything or provide a performance killing thunking layer that really hurts drivers.
Finding 64bit driver binaries in the OSS is also not extremely easy when dealing with closed source companies providing hardware.
Microsoft addressed this issue with Vista by REQUIRING hardware MFRS to make 64bit drivers along side 32bit drivers in order to get the MS Certifications/Logos for their products. This is a start, and why Vista x64 technically has more 64bit drivers than XP 32bit has.
If you look at Windows PC MFRs today even, Vista 64bit is usually an option and a default install on some models/series.
With Windows7, the driver issue will no longer be much of an issue except for a few legacy hardware users that can't get 64bit drivers.
You also have 'mobile' devices that are still 32bit, and with Windows Embedded - which gets updated with Windows7, it has to run on these 32bit devices and architectures.
Most of the desktop world will leave 32bit behind in the Windows world with Windows7. But that doesn't mean that embedded and other uses for 32bit versions of NT will not be needed in the future so don't expect MS to kill the 32bit version even in Windows8; however, it might not be offered to consumers.
PS Ignore the people that think 64bit doesn't matter, they are drinking either the Apple kool-aid or are working on toy OS technologies that are not 64bit optimized and just 32bit recompiles.
lol. you've drunk the kool-aid, 32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless
There is kool-aid, but you need to check you own cup.
If you are referring to the Apple marketing machine, they ya, 32bit and 64bit are not much different, just larger memory addressing. (Of course OS X is still a 32bit OS could be the reason they like to create this mis-perception.)
On a real 64bit OS, there are 64bit registers and tons of other tricks and optimizations that happen, let alone full 64bit drivers that can shove data to devices oh like Video cards much faster.
If you look at Vista x64 it performs 15% faster than Vista x32 if you have 2GB of RAM.
This includes not only the OS's operation, but even 32bit applications running on the OS.
You see when you have a 64bit memory addressing and can optimize for this in the memory manager you no longer have FS and pagefile lookkup tables for extended amounts of RAM.
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
Apparently, you have trouble understanding 'humor' - 'satire' - emphasis... as well.
I can see you are still on this subject. It reminds me of statement I read recently: "A consistent trait of sociopaths is their inability to get or understand satire."
At least I now know what type of person I am dealing with... *Gulp*
I hope your wife loves her Linux laptop, you really did her a favor by getting rid of that evil Windows for her.
) It is not that easy, GNU/Linux distros are sufficiently different from each other which makes cross-distro virus difficult to make.
Really, you want to bet on this?
How many XWindow interfaces are there, and how many would I have to target to hit all the distrobutions? If I wrote one virus targeting KDE and GNOME how many distributions do you think I would get? 99%?
Viruses and Malware only have to target one API on a platform, NOT THE KERNEL. In fact 99.99999% of viruses/malware on Windows, target Win32 and never even attempt to touch the NT kernel.
Due to 4), known vulnerabilities are either alreay fixed or will continue in the wild for a reduced time.
BTW I have a bridge in Brooklyn I am selling, are you interested?
There are a lot of 'bots' running on Linux boxes around the world that got in via a remote root exploit or even a user clicking on crap or installing a tainted binary. But because the users are like you, they know it isn't them and can't possibly be happening on their boxes.
Here is just one area that made a little news in the past year... Go research college records being hacked/stolen off of UNIX servers.
Even Berkley was hacked a year ago exposing tons of student data, and the servers that were hacked via an 'unknown' exploit using a 'bot' were OpenBSD (Not OSX, Not FreeBSD, Not even Linux) - Yes they were OpenBSD.
It is the unknowns that get ya, and this is one area the trapping development tools MS is using is giving them an edge over human error in the OSS world that depends on peer review and the peers being smart enough to sense a hole in the code.
The OSS world should do a MS style 'reboot' and adopt some new standards for development tools that don't depend on peer review as much as they do now. It couldn't hurt.
Ya well turned out not to be near powerful enough for that, so late in the development cycle they went to nVidia to get a chip.
The funny part about the NVidia chip Sony is using in the PS3 only exists because of Microsoft and Microsoft funding.
On the original XBox MS Engineers worked with NVidia to create what was the technology behind the Geforce4ti. The GPU created for the XBox was the first (NVidia at least) GPU that had Pixel Shader technology.
It was the work from the MS engineers and NVidia that created this custom GPU that NVidia took on to become the Geforce4ti (high end) and the GeforceFX (5xxx series) line of GPUs.
It wasn't until the 8xxx series of NVidia GPUs did they abandon the architecture that was co-designed and funded by Microsoft originally.
This is why when NVidia was asking for more money per GPU for MFR on the XBox GPU, MS basically told them to pound sand, as they had already help to create and fund their entire line of PC GPUs that was giving NVidia the success they were having.
So not only did Sony screw themselves by shoving a 'slower' Geforce 7900 into the PS3 that caused their own delays, the Geforce 7900 in the PS3 is based on designs from Microsoft engineers and MS funding that NVidia got during the original XBox development.
Besides adding the GPU into the PS3 at a late date, Sony screwed themselves with their own problems that were beyond anything IBM was doing.
Look at the PS3 Development tools. Even if Sony was waiting on parts from IBM, they could have at least had a mature set of development tools, instead even 'after' waiting on IBM or whatever their excuses are, their development tools sucked ass and can be argued to this day still don't properly harness the power of the Cell processor.
So if it was just waiting on IBM, the development tools would have been done and waiting, instead, the hardware was available before even a realistic or solid set of development tools were available.
In contrast, MS's development tools for the XBox 360 were ahead of the hardware and developers were using two G5 Macs running a custom version of Windows2003 x64 with a full set of development tools. And when the REAL XBox 360 hardware was made available to developers, they again got updated development tools from Microsoft that directly targeted the tri-core PowerPC and the MS designed ATI GPU that was optimized for the actual hardware.
Basically MS didn't even have the XBox 360 hardware, but had development tools in the hands of game developers and even found a way to provide these on an emulated hardware configuration. - Sony could have done this, instead they screwed developers and still do, and not they blame IBM for delaying their 'precious' chip. Holy lord of the rings...
With regard to the poster I am replying to, they are spot on with many things. The PS3 GPU is a slower version of the NVidia 7900 - this means laptops from 2005 have faster GPUs in them than a PS3. How is that for sad and scary...
Additionally, it was MS designs (that they kept ownership to this time) on the ATI based GPU technology in the XBox 360 that set the standard for all current GPUs on the market today. It was a unified shader technology, with on chip cache for AA, and also was designed to use the shared memory architecture that the Vista WDDM model is built around.
So every time you see a video card from ATI or NVidia with DX10, the design comes from MS engineers. (Yes NVidia didn't have access to, but used the design specifications behind the DX10 hardware specifications designed and written by Microsoft for their 8xxx and newer GPUs.)
Technically the GPU in the XBox 360 is a DX11 based GPU that is ahead of the current generation of GPU architectures still, and won't see desktop PC equivalents until you see DX11 GPUs on the shelves. (As it has hardware WDDM 1.1 hooks that current desktop GPUs do not have.)
I actually think the PS3 is a good gaming system for what it is. It is a good Blu-Ray player too.
The majority of viruses out there are targeted to windows
This is where your logic fails.
Ya, sure you are 'less likely', but I could write some software tonight that targets Linux Distributions, and throw it out on sites and then we will see how soon it is before Linux zealots never go for the obscurity defense again.
Already, there is an uprising of newbie techie Linux community users that have bots on their systems and are contributing to more spam and other bot crap than they realize. It is time for the old timers to educate the new generation of *nix users and explain, they are not immune.
(Windows NT was considered virus and malware safe in the 90s too, because no one used it and the viruses targeted Win9X)
All your suggestions are useful, but mixing in hints of violence (wife should smack me) makes me think negatively of you.
Whoa, it is called 'humor' - 'satire' - emphasis...
I also work in the computing world 24/7, and if you had time to respond to an article on SlashDot, you had 5min to make sure your family was secure when it comes to social security exploits.
I have yet to have a close friend or family member get infected by anything, let alone something they had to purposely install themselves. If they get it, move on, if they don't help them lock the computer down.
And although you may not agree with my 'wording', the problems your spouse had was the result of you not taking time to either explain how to avoid malware or help her lock down her computer.
It is easy to blame MS and go, "wow, last straw, linux here I come" - but it would also be like leaving your car unlocked and having your ipod stolen and then sell the car and get a new brand cause the old car was way to easy to steal stuff out of - not good logic. Ok?
I do apologize if you took my satire serious and any physical harm came to you or your spouse because I wrote that.
Sorry about your wife's laptop, but this doesn't happen without the user specifically installing the software.
Even on Linux, she won't be any safer if she isn't instructed not to click on crap and install it.
You would be safer running Vista, as this malware (not virus) was not able to get installed on Vista even when users told it yes. If by chance it even did get installed on Vista, it would have had limited damage compared to XP; things like redirect the web sites, turn off anti-virus etc. (Vista users basically didn't have this problem)
So you convince her to move to Vista yet?
You could also set her up as a 'user' and not let her run crap in administrator mode, and if she needs something installed, have her do the run as and actually type in the password so she knows that she is modifying the computer. (Yes on XP)
On, Vista, have her run as User as well, the password prompt is just automatic and doesn't require her to do 'run as'...
---
I love the stories of 'the last straw' and how horrible Windows is, especially when it is something users have done to themselves. If Windows or MS is guilty of anything here, is that they made Windows too easy for users and hasn't educated people enough. (Like you should have done for your spouse.)
PS She should smack the crap out of you for not explaining what to click on and what not to click on to install, especially from the internet.
I was just pointing it out in case you weren't aware. Since GEM supposedly unifies the FB with other graphics systems, I thought your question about getting rid of the framebuffer pointed to that fact. I wasn't arguing a point.
Sorry if my response was a bit long, and yes I understood what you were getting at.
The problem is that all of this is happening 'today' and not 5 years ago when it should have been happening. Also what is happening today is still just consolidating and updating with a few low level features added in.
OSS OS technologies are so losing right now, it is scary... And my 5 years of yelling and screaming and poking people with a stick still falls on deaf ears most of the time.
haven't been changed as much as in Windows because they aren't as broken as Windows 9x was. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.:-)
Let me stop you right there...
You don't even realize that Windows 9x and Windows NT (Win2k,XP,Vista) are two entirely different architectures...
Win9X was an x86 assembly optimized DOS/Hybrid Win32 kernel and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WINDOWS OR NT.
Even comparing Win9X not only says you know nothing, but here is how insane it is... Let me replace your words with technology you understand so you know how insane this would sound if I said this but referenced Apple technologies in place of Windows: "and the memory manager has undergone changes. Some of those other things haven't been changed as much as in OS X because they aren't as broken as System 9 was."
Do you see how you are conflating two entirely different operating systems? Win9X has truly NOTHING to do with Windows NT, which is the core OS technology of Windows for the past 10 years.
When Microsoft abandoned the Win9X OSes and jumped users to WindowsXP, it was as massive of a change was when Apple abandoned System 9 and moved users to OS X.
(It only 'kind of' looked like previous versions of Windows because it was 'designed' to, and it let previous applications written for Win9X run seamlessly because of how MS engineered the Win32 subsystem on NT - NT can do older API level VM technology inherently because it is a client/server kernel. - This is why XP and Vista can also run a full BSD subsystem along side Win32/Win64 subsystems.)
As for NT's memory management, it was light years ahead of System 9 and Win9X when it was designed back in 1992, and to this day, the only MAJOR change was in Vista (yes 15 years later) to add a priority flag to the memory allocation so that the OS can do intelligent things with the Memory and the processes attached to it.
Holy crap batman - please go Wiki this stuff.
And for the last time, can people on Slashdot and the Apple world FINALLY GET IT THROUGH THEIR HEADS that the Win9x/WinME that they were using 10 years ago is dead and gone just like System9 is dead and gone and has NOTHING to do with the modern Windows versions (Win2k/Vista/Win7) that is based on the NT kernel architecture.
And if you want to compare NT to OS X, you better do your homework, as NT is not your grandfathers Win9X OS...
Oh one more thing... When an operating system requires that old drivers be re-written and that many applications fail to work for their 64 bit versions of their operating systems; to the point that people still prefer their 32 bit operating systems
You realize that OS X is a 32bit OS and even Snow leopard will STILL have a 32bit kernel, and this is why they won't require drivers to be recompiled for 64bit operation?
Heck MS could have stayed with Windows 3.1 and the 16bit drivers if that was their goal and just slapped paint on Windows 3.1 to allow it to run 32bit and 64bit applications, all being choked by the 16bit OS running under them. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT APPLE IS DOING by keeping OS X 32bit. But hey, their drivers don't have to be changed. Geesh.
Because Vista x64 and XP x64 are REAL and FULL 64bit OSes they get the benefits of 64bit computing 'BEYOND 64bit Memory Addressing', and this is why they run 15% faster than their 32bit counterparts.
Also if you want to make fun of 'Drivers' Vista x64 has more drivers than Windows XP 32bit does, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000x more drivers than OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
, but for the most part it is Vista revisited. And they are not releasing it as SP2 because they want to make money - and historically, service packs have been released free of charge
Good theory, but it doesn't fit reality...
1) Vista SP2 is in beta, and it also improves performance of Vista and reduces Vista's HD space required. Also new Bluetooth in SP2, fixes, etc. So if you are looking for SP2, there really is one with normal SP2 level of features. (SP2 has enough features, Apple would put up a 300 Features list and sell it to you.)
2) Windows 7 has more 'new features' and 'architectural changes' that makes it a full OS update - more of an update than you can find from OS X 10.4 to 10.5 for example. In the Linux world it would merit a .x update at the very least if you look at just the kernel level changes and optimiziations.
I could recite a full list of things from the new scheduler supporting at minimum 64 CPUs with little overhead that you usually get from SMP and tons of other kernel and multi-layer changes, or we could talk about all the user level changes like the taskbar new applications and tools, or go through a very long list of new OS API sets for developers with tons of features in these APIs that WILL NOT work on Vista, as Vista does not have the technology to handle it.
We could talk about the updates from the Vista systems to the Win7 systems(Networking, Sound, Video) - i.e. Audio stack has new low latency features with more advanced inline effects processing, and Video looks like Vista, but it moves to WDDM 1.1 and can even do software rendering of DirectX content for the first time in MS history.
There is a lot under the Windows7 hood.
However if want a 'test' to see if it really is just Vista SP2, look at these things that make it break off a long way from a SP.
1) Unlike Vista you can't upgrade from XP to Win7. (Users have to use the migration Wizard to transfer programs and user files.) MS would have loved to left it so you could upgrade from XP, but the changes in Win7 are so numerous it would require a complete rewrite of the migration, update part of the install process. Even the way it handles upgrading from Vista, is more of an advanced 'migration tool' rather than just slipping in the new binaries.
2) If MS were to take Beta 1 and list the feature or changes on the scale that Apple did with their '300 features' for leopard, there are already probably 7500 items MS could list.
Win7 is truly NOT just a SP nor an Apple level of OS update, and does merit a full version release.
If you want to compare it to previous Windows releases it is more like Windows NT 3.51 to Windows NT 4.0. Windows NT 3.51 moved Win32 to the newest level and could even run the NT 4.0 Shell, so it was a major architecture shift from 3.1, but it took NT 4.0 to get the User level realization of these features available, along with another reoptimization and revamp of the entire OS in the same release process. And NT 4.0 brought a lot of big new features beyond just the updated Win32 Explorer, starting from the Video driver to adding in big features likes IIS and Terminal Services, etc.
I know it is easy to compare Win7 as a 'newer' Vista, as it does build on the technologies MS shoved out the door in Vista, but that is NOT ALL it is, and there is where the reality of the argument fails.
Take Care
, the sooner we can start amassing a huge catalog of 64 bit drivers that will rival what already exists in the 32 bit world.
I agree, but this is already happening more than most people realize.
In the Windows world for example...
With Vista MS now requires that all MFRs provide 64bit drivers in addition to 32bit drivers to get MS Hardware Logo/Approval, which is important and has forced virtually all new hardware since Vista was released to have a 64bit driver.
There is also the Windows Logo/Approval for Applications, which means that even if the MFR doesn't provide a native 64bit application, the 32bit version must work on Vista x64. This eliminates the the Applicaitons that try to use 32bit only services/drivers as a part of the application, as they must also put out a 64bit version of the lower components.
If you look at even freeware or OSS windows projects like Daemon tools, you will notice even they provide native 64bit versions and drivers, even if the 64bit drivers are MS Certified, they are at least available.
A bit of trivia that helps put this in perspective. Windows Vista x64 has more hardware drivers available for it than Windows XP 32bit does.
Yes, this sounds 'out there', but it is true, and means that MS is getting the 64bit movement going better than most people realize. (Of course there are older devices that just don't have 64bit drivers, but you will find this offset by hardware that is Vista only and has 64bit drivers available.)
So, if MS is making the 64bit drivers and application compatibility happen, while keeping a 32bit version of Vista or Win7 available, why not...?
I still can't believe there will be a 32-bit version
PentiumIII
Pentium4 M
Pentium4 (pre EMT64 models)
Intel Duo (Pre Core 2)
Intel Solo
Intel Atom (Some Series)
Notice the last couple, I don't think people realize that there are shipping computers today that still have 32bit processors. If you look at computers in the last year you can find everything with some of the Intel Duo or Solo pre-x64 versions, like Mac-Mini etc...
Also there is Windows Embedded that is updated for 7, running full versions of Win7 on things like picture frames and routers. (Yes XP embedded is probably in a device in your house that you don't even realize) - And no this is not CE Embedded.
So why a 32bit version? Because Windows/NT works well on different architectures and ports rather easily, and with the client/server kernel subsystem technology, a Win32/Win64 subsystem model is not hard to maintain along side a standard 32bit version.
I saw a post like this before on here, it was an OS X user first insisting that OS X was 64bit, then after they Wiki'd it, they then came back and said that Snow Leopard would be ONLY 64bit and Apple was superior in moving OS technology to 64bit because it was only 64bit, which also was wrong.
There is no reason MS can't keep a 32bit version around for even another release or two if they want, it isn't rocket science to have the two versions and give people with older computers and older hardware without 64bit drivers something beyond XP, especially when Win7 is showing to be as fast or faster than XP and still keeping all the Vista features.
..but it will be built and delivered for both 64-bit and legacy x86 in the same packages
That was my original point, read the people I was responding to, their whole argument was that Apple was superior because they were the ONLY company that was doing 64bit exclusively. Which is A) Wrong, and B) Insane.
On to the issue of running sub-systems for compatibility, it sounds like you are describing the NT kernel as a version of the Mach kernel, and then denying that any other OS other than NT has the ability to do this
Actually, no...
It appears that you are assuming from my description that I am describing a microkernel, and I'm not, there is quite a difference.
Let's start here...
NT is not a microkernel.
NT is NOT a MACH design.
NT uses some microkernel concepts but how it deals with the API abstraction and the unification of the executive kernel makes it rather unique.
It is this abstraction that 'layers off' API sets of the OS into subsystems, and gives NT the ability to run Win32 or Win64 or even BSD, natively on the NT executive kernel. (See Win32 has its own kernel APIs that interface to the NT kernel, etc etc.)
The creator of the MACH kernel works for Microsoft, and has talked about the significant design differences between a MACH kernel and the NT kernel.
He also talks about the flaws in the MACH design, and why he is surprised that people (Like Apple) are still using variants of it on today's hardware.
MACH's creator helped in the design process of NT, and there are specific reasons why NT is not MACH based because of him, just like there are reasons Cutler chose not to use VMS designs, and other *nix gurus of the time working for MS (When MS even owned XENIX) that worked on NT decided to NOT make it a *nix based OS as well.
They knew the good things of their respective designs and the bad things and set out to create a new OS concept that inherently avoided the pitfalls, and also would be extremely extensible to take on new technologies by not locking the kernel to specific OS level API sets.
Their design goal and the result is what I was describing and is an architecture than can natively host different OS API subsystems like Win32 or POSIX or a BSD subsystem on TOP of the NT kernel instead of having these OS APIs in the kernel.
The NT kernel is a client/server hybrid design because it is OS API agnostic when it comes to anything above the NT kernel layers and just interfaces to the respective subsystem and their OS kernel API sets.
Here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp [extremetech.com]
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
--
For everyone here that blindly follows ZDNet or other journalist reviews, remember this...
Most of the journalists get free Macs. Apple throws free swag and Macs at journalists at an alarming rate. If you even touch the journalism or publishing industry, you get free Apple products for a reason.
One of best friends works as a sales manager for a semi-small column syndicate, and they offer her a new Mac every six months, and she is just in sales. (And yes they come from Apple, not the publishing companies or syndicates and are given to any employee that will take them in way that make it seem 'acceptable' for even hard core journalists. Thankfully there are a few people that say, "No thank you.")
Remember this the next time you are reading an article and who is behind the articles. Stick to the gamers and 'true' tech sites instead of the Apple swag infested sites. There is a reason the guy at the WSJ or NYT sitting with his new free Mac might write a less than glowing review of something not-Mac.
If you watch 'Colbert', he blatantly makes fun of this aspect of Apple, as everyone in the entertainment and journalism industry knows this; he is just smart enough to use it to get free crap while making fun of it at the same time.
You need to head over to channel9.msdn.com and look up the videos from the Vista Audio System Engineers from 2006/2007.
Then look up the newer videos from the same engineers (2008) that talk about how they were able to use the Vista Audio architecture and use driver polling to reduce latency even further in Windows7.
This is something that would interest you and you might find a bit more respect by what MS's engineers did with Vista and why they redesigned the Vista Audio system the way they did.
(Besides there is no reason a computer audio system of today should not be able to throw a microphone in the middle of the room and dynamically configure the 7.1 surround processing and calculate the proper distance and latencies for each channel to the listener like Vista does.)
The 2008 videos should also give you some hope for Windows7, as it will offer more of the advanced audio processing Vista introduced with really low latency.
(PS The Creative examples of OpenAL and what Creative has been doing with audio are not good examples of what is the 'best' way to handle things. They designed their hardware around some really old audio handling concepts, and specifically rejected the HD audio specifications that Intel and MS were working on. This is what locked their cards to WindowsXP level technology, and is also why OpenAL HAS to bypass the Vista audio stack, because they run in WindowsXP audio modes with no advanced processing other than what Creative provides.)
Investing in EAX and other 'trick' crap was transitional, when Creative should have been working on full multi-channel sound systems, and working with software that is fully aware of the multi-channel system. This IS stuff that should be handled at the OS level like in Vista and not only on the hardware with the OS unaware and unable to use it properly as it was on XP and previous generations.
In Vista, the OS and Games and Applications can send a sound to any of the 8 speakers at any time with calculated latency so it arrives at the right time and even add effects processing to the sound.
This is a lot of sound control available to developers that was never there before Vista, even if it caused growing pains. Also, DX10.1 is the answer to older OpenAL that shoved all the processing to the Audio hardware, as it moves the Vista audio concepts to a more direct hardware assisted path, letting audio hardware get the processing handed off in more circumstances, with the OS still having full control and awareness of the sound environment and capabilities.
It is kind of nice for Vista to know what your audio is, and Windows7 capitalizes on this even further for headsets and alternative audio sources and output devices.
Anyway, check out the videos, you will enjoy them, trust me.
what I'm saying is that while Microsoft has its feet in both 32 and 64bit OSs Apple is trying to move the entire product line
This is the most insane point you keep hitting on that has no merit.
It is not true, Apple is not moving 100% to 64bit any faster than anyone else.
Point: iPhone is not 64bit. Get it?
Microsoft supporting 32bit devices (like Apple supporting the iPhone) does not mean they are doing something 'less important'.
Microsoft is moving just as fast to 64bit, and was doing so when Apple was still selling System 9 software that couldn't even do pre-emptive multi-tasking.
By offering a 32bit version for people still running PentiumIII, Pentium4, Solo, and Duo 32bit processors is good for the consumers. There are also 100,000s of thousands of REALLY old devices that don't have new 64bit drivers, and instead of MS telling users to go screw themselves, they provide a way to keep their old crap if they want.
As for CPUs, Many of the Apple Mac are running on 32bit versions of Intel chips. The Duo and Solo are NOT 64bit CPUs, only the Core 2 Duo versions are 64bit.
Do you not realize this?
What is Snow Leopard, if it really is only going to be 64bit based, going to do with these customers that have Intel based hardware that can't process 64bit instructions? (Like Early Notebooks, Mac-Mini, etc...)
These CPU based Mac computers are one or two years old and still being sold.
Holy Geesh batman...
By Microsoft keeping a 32bit desktop version in production only helps consumers, instead of screwing them over for no reason when Microsoft doesn't have to.
It is EASY for Microsoft to maintain both a 64bit and 32bit OS code base, due to the way NT is designed. IT IS NOT EASY FOR APPLE TO DO THIS WITH OS X - THIS IS WHY THEY WON'T DO IT.
I don't think you realize how easy NT works in this regard with different platforms and handling 32bit and 64bit transparently. You do realize that MS compiled a PowerPC G5 Windows 2003 64bit version for the XBox developers back in 2004 right? Even the XBox 360, with a tri-core PowerPC is running a 64bit version of Windows 2003 (NT)... This is not a massive shift for MS like it is for OS X and Apple. NT is far more portable than OS X and OS X kernel technologies.
On NT, the Win32 and Win64 portions of the OS run in subsystems because it is a client/server kernel design, and each subsystem Win32 and Win64 have their own upper level kernels. This is also how you can run BSD on NT in its own subsystem along side Win32 and Win64.
This is NOT something OS X, or 99.9% of OSes in the world can do.
Additionally, Windows Embedded is a version of Windows NT and is updated with Windows7 and is designed to run on very low end chips.
There are more devices and systems out there that Microsoft Supports than one OS on their own hardware like Apple does. Microsoft OSes (Like Windows NT Embedded) run routers and switches to even appliances and devices you probably have in YOUR HOME and don't realize there is a Windows Embedded OS running it.
You have no understanding of the basic OS technologies, yet you are going to continue to insist that by Apple shoving Snow Leopard closer to 64bit they are doing something better than MS or the OSS movement?
This is insane or you are completely clueless about OS architecture with respect to CPU architectures they are running on.
You claim it doesn't matter for the windows world and then pick out a counterexample for an application written in Carbon. You're either deliberately obfuscating the issue or not understanding what's going on.
No Adobe wasn't 'sold' in terms of money, but they were PROMISED that Carbon would move to 64bit to allow their software progression without rewriting it. Or at the very least offer a migration path. Instead they have to fully re-write their entire suite of applications (AGAIN) just to do a 64bit version.
This is why there are no 64bit versions
How's the weather up there in Redmond? Seriously.
Stinkin' shill
It sucks, but I'm in Montana this week. (Slashdot check the IP if you want. Freaking Bresnan out of Bozeman MT.)
I have homes in San Diego and Reno, and own the company I work for, and funny as it is, I have never been to Seattle or Redmond. I spend a lot of time in Belgium though, does that make me like Dr. Evil?
Microsoft could drop off the earth and Windows could explode into non-existence as far as I personally care... (Actually I might miss my XBox 360 and Halo time with friends, so I might care for a minute or two.)
Here is one.. There are a lot of technical information articles out there about Vista's performance and the RAM threshold. Even if you review MS's own technet their white papers talk about where Vista sucks and where it does well, and the dependence on RAM.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
(Hit Next to view the Gaming results.)
The only benchmark XP SP3 beats Vista is in the synthetic 3DMark, but the games are faster in Vista, showing that 3DMark isn't as accurate as some would like to believe.
If your installation blew chunks it could have been a couple of simple things.
Things like a bad driver (especially if you didn't get the latest from NVIdia), also things like how Vista optimizes itself and the first impressions are usually bad the first day or two.
(Ya MS was really stupid with the OS optimization process in Vista, as it actually waits so many restarts and application loads before things kick in. - Thankfully Win7 doesn't do this, and optimizes during installation and starts with optimization templates even that are working for you when you first see your desktop on the first boot.)
First impressions are important, and MS didn't seem to remember this at all with Vista from the release to even how the OS optimizes the installation.
---
If I was you, wait for the public beta of Win7, and give it a try. Even for an early beta, you will be surprised how well it does, I promise. And if you are keeping Windows around for gaming, you will really like Windows7.
Scheduler in Vista also performs worse than on XP (so MS had to resort to such hacks: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx [technet.com] ).
Saying this with the link you provide pretty much discredits anything you continue to say.
You have no idea what you are talking about...
Here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
And this is SP3 - the fastest XP compared to Vista.
So go on again about how horrible the scheduler is in Vista, I am guessing you don't even know what a scheduler does and especially I know you don't know how it works in NT.
If you want to put your hands over your ears and eyes and keep screaming, "Vista is slower", try clicking your heels together too, it is as likely to make it true and take you to Kansas.
The Vista is slower myths need to stop and the idiocy behind them is really getting annoying.
The question with Snow Leopard is whether it will be 'more' 64bit or a full 64bit OS.
The driver issue is something you don't see Apple talking about even to device MFRs, and if OS X 10.6 was going 64bit, all kernel level drivers will have to be ported to 64bit.
Unless Apple has a grand driver thunking system they are going to try to use 32bit drivers.
It is also possible, Apple is selectively moving kernel portions to 64bit, and leaving the driver interface layer 32bit, and this would be a lot like OS/2 was, as it used 16bit drivers, even though it was a 32bit OS. (And this is one reason for the OS/2 problems with I/O locking and creating system stability far below NT, and more in line with Win3.1.)
I honestly don't know what Apple will end up doing. I have heard almost every story I place here from various sources, as to what they want and are trying to get working.
If they pull out full 64bit and give it the optimizations other 64bit OS enjoy, great for them. Maybe they will run the TV Ads about being the first 64bit Personal Computer again. :)
, however at least there is a clear intent to redress this issue for the client OS within the next few months with the release of snow leopard and that will be the only OS Apple will distribute.
You need to check out how Snow Leopard is built a little better, as it will not be 100% 64bit. It will be 'more' of a hybrid, but still not a full 64bit OS.
Microsoft will undoubtedly have versions of Windows 7 in 32 and 64-bit and by default distribute the 32-bit version. I completely understand why they might do this, I might even be convinced it is in their interest to do that, but I think it holds back the development of the platform in general.
Because it DOESN'T matter in the Windows world. 32bit applications get performance benefits on the 64bit OS. Also if developers want to provide a full 64bit version, it is a simple recompile, you don't have to re-write the application like a lot of people (Adobe for example) find they have to do on OS X. This is why if you want a 64bit version of Adobe software, you need Vistax64, as the development APIs Apple sold Adobe never got moved to 64bit as promised.
All MS API sets(development platforms) move to 64bit, even old 16bit applications can be recompiled as 64bit applications. (You can't do this with System 9 applications, nor even the whole early 32bit transition APIs Apple provided.)
Understand?
Finally Leopard itself does support full 64-bitness, for example Apache on OS X Server is running as a proper 64-bit application. I don't mean to dispute your claims that it remains effectively a 32-bit OS, just that it's not as cut and dried as it might appear.
It isn't cut and dried, but it is a fact.
OS X enables applications to use and execute the 64bit memory addressing flags. However, the application is not running in full 64bit mode beyond the memory space the the execute flag optimizations on the CPU.
For everything the application (Apache in this example) that touches the OS, an OS API, or asks the OS to do, gets processed in 32bit mode. So if Apache asks OS X's kernel for a file from the File System, this is all happening in 32bit. Every API Apache uses that goes through the OS X kernel is processed in 32bit mode - not only in the OS, but the CPU is shifted to 32bit mode to process the call as well.
Understand?
You are defending Apple on something they don't need to be defended on and are more a problem in the industry when it comes to this subject than some 'noble' company.
Do you remember the Apple ads talking about the FIRST 64bit Personal Computer? How ironic that this many years later it still isn't even running a native 64bit OS, where Windows has been doing 64bit versions since the mid 90s. (Yes NT 4.0 versions had 64bit modes and used 48bit addressing space on hardware capable of it, like the DEC Alpha)
Apple is out of their league and making a fool of themselves in the process.
There are some good TechNet articles at Microsoft that would give you specific answers of what happens on Vistax64 with regard to 32bit memory allocation. (The SDK/DDKs will also give you some answers.)
Also check out interviews with NT engineers at channel9.msdn.com.
As for you questions regarding the compiler, yes. If you compile your application for 64bit, optimizations like you describe are handled unless you disable them in the compiler.
However, the things I was talking about in reference to Vistax64 is that running 32bit code on the 64bit OS, gives the OS the ability to make decisions like this on the fly for upper level system RAM (not CPU level optimizations/etc). So on Vista x64, and running your 32bit code, it will execute faster on Vista x64 because the OS is running faster, but also if you are using large chunks of RAM, the 32bit application will get additional boosts by combining 32bit memory chunks into one read/write of 64bit space.
Once you get what you need on what Windows x64 is doing, head over to AMD and read about CPU specific optimizations that happen in the register and cache levels of the CPUs when executing 32bit code.
Even if you stick to 32bit development, your applications get benefits of Vista x64.
---
Side Note for others:
Anyone here that installs Windows for gaming, if you have 2GB of RAM, grab the 64bit version of Vista, you will easily get 15% more performance out of your games over Vista x32 and XP.
And if you play MMOs, your zone and load times in either version of Vista will make you never want to touch XP again as it is often a 10x to 20x difference due to SuperFetch.
Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine
Sadly, as much as the SlashDot world not like to believe, this is accurate.
If you have 1GB of RAM even on old hardware, Vista is as fast as XP, as the extra RAM offsets the Vista features overhead and Superfetch and other tricks of Vista help make up performance gains.
With 2GB of RAM, Vista will be faster, even if you have a 800mzh PIII and a 1998 ATI video card.
Vista or should we say the NT kernel in Vista is not slow or bloated, it is the extra features that Vista is doing that consumes RAM that offsets its performance gains over XP. (Search Engine, etc.)
The CPU cycles for the Vista features are light, it is all about RAM. Just like with virtually every Windows and known OS update in history, they want more RAM for the features they add.
- Even for Leopard to perform as fast as Tiger you need 1GB of RAM, which is funny considering Apple was making fun of Vista for the exact same reason.
Here is how it works:
512MB RAM - XP > Vista
1GB RAM - XP = Vista
1.5GB+ RAM - Vista > XP
Windows7 so far is showing that even on 512MB is faster than XP in many cases, which is the result of the event based service manager, that unloads processes/services when not needed and saves RAM.
An example on a running test system with 3Ghz P4 and 1GB RAM:
Vista 41% - OS Consumed RAM
Win7 20% - OS Consumed RAM
See how that might help the Vista RAM overhead and put Win7 back in line with XP?
PS And on this test system Vista is faster than XP - even in gaming with a Geforce 5600 video card.
When are 32bit OSes going to start going away?
Good question, and Apple would be one of the companies to ask first, being that OS X is still 32bit and even the kernel of Snow Leopard will still be 32bit.
The problem with moving to 64bit for companies like Apple and even in the OSS world is drivers. If Apple were to move to a real 64bit kernel, it would require new drivers for everything or provide a performance killing thunking layer that really hurts drivers.
Finding 64bit driver binaries in the OSS is also not extremely easy when dealing with closed source companies providing hardware.
Microsoft addressed this issue with Vista by REQUIRING hardware MFRS to make 64bit drivers along side 32bit drivers in order to get the MS Certifications/Logos for their products. This is a start, and why Vista x64 technically has more 64bit drivers than XP 32bit has.
If you look at Windows PC MFRs today even, Vista 64bit is usually an option and a default install on some models/series.
With Windows7, the driver issue will no longer be much of an issue except for a few legacy hardware users that can't get 64bit drivers.
You also have 'mobile' devices that are still 32bit, and with Windows Embedded - which gets updated with Windows7, it has to run on these 32bit devices and architectures.
Most of the desktop world will leave 32bit behind in the Windows world with Windows7. But that doesn't mean that embedded and other uses for 32bit versions of NT will not be needed in the future so don't expect MS to kill the 32bit version even in Windows8; however, it might not be offered to consumers.
PS Ignore the people that think 64bit doesn't matter, they are drinking either the Apple kool-aid or are working on toy OS technologies that are not 64bit optimized and just 32bit recompiles.
lol. you've drunk the kool-aid, 32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless
There is kool-aid, but you need to check you own cup.
If you are referring to the Apple marketing machine, they ya, 32bit and 64bit are not much different, just larger memory addressing. (Of course OS X is still a 32bit OS could be the reason they like to create this mis-perception.)
On a real 64bit OS, there are 64bit registers and tons of other tricks and optimizations that happen, let alone full 64bit drivers that can shove data to devices oh like Video cards much faster.
If you look at Vista x64 it performs 15% faster than Vista x32 if you have 2GB of RAM.
This includes not only the OS's operation, but even 32bit applications running on the OS.
You see when you have a 64bit memory addressing and can optimize for this in the memory manager you no longer have FS and pagefile lookkup tables for extended amounts of RAM.
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
And we could go on and on and on...
Understand yet?
Apparently, you have trouble understanding 'humor' - 'satire' - emphasis... as well.
I can see you are still on this subject. It reminds me of statement I read recently:
"A consistent trait of sociopaths is their inability to get or understand satire."
At least I now know what type of person I am dealing with...
*Gulp*
I hope your wife loves her Linux laptop, you really did her a favor by getting rid of that evil Windows for her.
My best wishes go out to you!
Have a nice day...
) It is not that easy, GNU/Linux distros are sufficiently different from each other which makes cross-distro virus difficult to make.
Really, you want to bet on this?
How many XWindow interfaces are there, and how many would I have to target to hit all the distrobutions? If I wrote one virus targeting KDE and GNOME how many distributions do you think I would get? 99%?
Viruses and Malware only have to target one API on a platform, NOT THE KERNEL. In fact 99.99999% of viruses/malware on Windows, target Win32 and never even attempt to touch the NT kernel.
Due to 4), known vulnerabilities are either alreay fixed or will continue in the wild for a reduced time.
BTW I have a bridge in Brooklyn I am selling, are you interested?
There are a lot of 'bots' running on Linux boxes around the world that got in via a remote root exploit or even a user clicking on crap or installing a tainted binary. But because the users are like you, they know it isn't them and can't possibly be happening on their boxes.
Here is just one area that made a little news in the past year... Go research college records being hacked/stolen off of UNIX servers.
Even Berkley was hacked a year ago exposing tons of student data, and the servers that were hacked via an 'unknown' exploit using a 'bot' were OpenBSD (Not OSX, Not FreeBSD, Not even Linux) - Yes they were OpenBSD.
It is the unknowns that get ya, and this is one area the trapping development tools MS is using is giving them an edge over human error in the OSS world that depends on peer review and the peers being smart enough to sense a hole in the code.
The OSS world should do a MS style 'reboot' and adopt some new standards for development tools that don't depend on peer review as much as they do now. It couldn't hurt.
Ya well turned out not to be near powerful enough for that, so late in the development cycle they went to nVidia to get a chip.
The funny part about the NVidia chip Sony is using in the PS3 only exists because of Microsoft and Microsoft funding.
On the original XBox MS Engineers worked with NVidia to create what was the technology behind the Geforce4ti. The GPU created for the XBox was the first (NVidia at least) GPU that had Pixel Shader technology.
It was the work from the MS engineers and NVidia that created this custom GPU that NVidia took on to become the Geforce4ti (high end) and the GeforceFX (5xxx series) line of GPUs.
It wasn't until the 8xxx series of NVidia GPUs did they abandon the architecture that was co-designed and funded by Microsoft originally.
This is why when NVidia was asking for more money per GPU for MFR on the XBox GPU, MS basically told them to pound sand, as they had already help to create and fund their entire line of PC GPUs that was giving NVidia the success they were having.
So not only did Sony screw themselves by shoving a 'slower' Geforce 7900 into the PS3 that caused their own delays, the Geforce 7900 in the PS3 is based on designs from Microsoft engineers and MS funding that NVidia got during the original XBox development.
Besides adding the GPU into the PS3 at a late date, Sony screwed themselves with their own problems that were beyond anything IBM was doing.
Look at the PS3 Development tools. Even if Sony was waiting on parts from IBM, they could have at least had a mature set of development tools, instead even 'after' waiting on IBM or whatever their excuses are, their development tools sucked ass and can be argued to this day still don't properly harness the power of the Cell processor.
So if it was just waiting on IBM, the development tools would have been done and waiting, instead, the hardware was available before even a realistic or solid set of development tools were available.
In contrast, MS's development tools for the XBox 360 were ahead of the hardware and developers were using two G5 Macs running a custom version of Windows2003 x64 with a full set of development tools. And when the REAL XBox 360 hardware was made available to developers, they again got updated development tools from Microsoft that directly targeted the tri-core PowerPC and the MS designed ATI GPU that was optimized for the actual hardware.
Basically MS didn't even have the XBox 360 hardware, but had development tools in the hands of game developers and even found a way to provide these on an emulated hardware configuration. - Sony could have done this, instead they screwed developers and still do, and not they blame IBM for delaying their 'precious' chip. Holy lord of the rings...
With regard to the poster I am replying to, they are spot on with many things. The PS3 GPU is a slower version of the NVidia 7900 - this means laptops from 2005 have faster GPUs in them than a PS3. How is that for sad and scary...
Additionally, it was MS designs (that they kept ownership to this time) on the ATI based GPU technology in the XBox 360 that set the standard for all current GPUs on the market today. It was a unified shader technology, with on chip cache for AA, and also was designed to use the shared memory architecture that the Vista WDDM model is built around.
So every time you see a video card from ATI or NVidia with DX10, the design comes from MS engineers. (Yes NVidia didn't have access to, but used the design specifications behind the DX10 hardware specifications designed and written by Microsoft for their 8xxx and newer GPUs.)
Technically the GPU in the XBox 360 is a DX11 based GPU that is ahead of the current generation of GPU architectures still, and won't see desktop PC equivalents until you see DX11 GPUs on the shelves. (As it has hardware WDDM 1.1 hooks that current desktop GPUs do not have.)
I actually think the PS3 is a good gaming system for what it is. It is a good Blu-Ray player too.
It was
The majority of viruses out there are targeted to windows
This is where your logic fails.
Ya, sure you are 'less likely', but I could write some software tonight that targets Linux Distributions, and throw it out on sites and then we will see how soon it is before Linux zealots never go for the obscurity defense again.
Already, there is an uprising of newbie techie Linux community users that have bots on their systems and are contributing to more spam and other bot crap than they realize. It is time for the old timers to educate the new generation of *nix users and explain, they are not immune.
(Windows NT was considered virus and malware safe in the 90s too, because no one used it and the viruses targeted Win9X)
All your suggestions are useful, but mixing in hints of violence (wife should smack me) makes me think negatively of you.
Whoa, it is called 'humor' - 'satire' - emphasis...
I also work in the computing world 24/7, and if you had time to respond to an article on SlashDot, you had 5min to make sure your family was secure when it comes to social security exploits.
I have yet to have a close friend or family member get infected by anything, let alone something they had to purposely install themselves. If they get it, move on, if they don't help them lock the computer down.
And although you may not agree with my 'wording', the problems your spouse had was the result of you not taking time to either explain how to avoid malware or help her lock down her computer.
It is easy to blame MS and go, "wow, last straw, linux here I come" - but it would also be like leaving your car unlocked and having your ipod stolen and then sell the car and get a new brand cause the old car was way to easy to steal stuff out of - not good logic. Ok?
I do apologize if you took my satire serious and any physical harm came to you or your spouse because I wrote that.
You make it sound as if Linux is some horribly complicated OS that requires instruction
Nope, never hinted at it, or had it even cross my mind.
The fact that you somehow got that from my post is beyond Freudian...
Sorry about your wife's laptop, but this doesn't happen without the user specifically installing the software.
Even on Linux, she won't be any safer if she isn't instructed not to click on crap and install it.
You would be safer running Vista, as this malware (not virus) was not able to get installed on Vista even when users told it yes. If by chance it even did get installed on Vista, it would have had limited damage compared to XP; things like redirect the web sites, turn off anti-virus etc. (Vista users basically didn't have this problem)
So you convince her to move to Vista yet?
You could also set her up as a 'user' and not let her run crap in administrator mode, and if she needs something installed, have her do the run as and actually type in the password so she knows that she is modifying the computer. (Yes on XP)
On, Vista, have her run as User as well, the password prompt is just automatic and doesn't require her to do 'run as'...
---
I love the stories of 'the last straw' and how horrible Windows is, especially when it is something users have done to themselves. If Windows or MS is guilty of anything here, is that they made Windows too easy for users and hasn't educated people enough. (Like you should have done for your spouse.)
PS She should smack the crap out of you for not explaining what to click on and what not to click on to install, especially from the internet.
I was just pointing it out in case you weren't aware. Since GEM supposedly unifies the FB with other graphics systems, I thought your question about getting rid of the framebuffer pointed to that fact. I wasn't arguing a point.
Sorry if my response was a bit long, and yes I understood what you were getting at.
The problem is that all of this is happening 'today' and not 5 years ago when it should have been happening. Also what is happening today is still just consolidating and updating with a few low level features added in.
OSS OS technologies are so losing right now, it is scary... And my 5 years of yelling and screaming and poking people with a stick still falls on deaf ears most of the time.
haven't been changed as much as in Windows because they aren't as broken as Windows 9x was. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you. :-)
Let me stop you right there...
You don't even realize that Windows 9x and Windows NT (Win2k,XP,Vista) are two entirely different architectures...
Win9X was an x86 assembly optimized DOS/Hybrid Win32 kernel and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WINDOWS OR NT.
Even comparing Win9X not only says you know nothing, but here is how insane it is... Let me replace your words with technology you understand so you know how insane this would sound if I said this but referenced Apple technologies in place of Windows:
"and the memory manager has undergone changes. Some of those other things haven't been changed as much as in OS X because they aren't as broken as System 9 was."
Do you see how you are conflating two entirely different operating systems? Win9X has truly NOTHING to do with Windows NT, which is the core OS technology of Windows for the past 10 years.
When Microsoft abandoned the Win9X OSes and jumped users to WindowsXP, it was as massive of a change was when Apple abandoned System 9 and moved users to OS X.
(It only 'kind of' looked like previous versions of Windows because it was 'designed' to, and it let previous applications written for Win9X run seamlessly because of how MS engineered the Win32 subsystem on NT - NT can do older API level VM technology inherently because it is a client/server kernel. - This is why XP and Vista can also run a full BSD subsystem along side Win32/Win64 subsystems.)
As for NT's memory management, it was light years ahead of System 9 and Win9X when it was designed back in 1992, and to this day, the only MAJOR change was in Vista (yes 15 years later) to add a priority flag to the memory allocation so that the OS can do intelligent things with the Memory and the processes attached to it.
Holy crap batman - please go Wiki this stuff.
And for the last time, can people on Slashdot and the Apple world FINALLY GET IT THROUGH THEIR HEADS that the Win9x/WinME that they were using 10 years ago is dead and gone just like System9 is dead and gone and has NOTHING to do with the modern Windows versions (Win2k/Vista/Win7) that is based on the NT kernel architecture.
And if you want to compare NT to OS X, you better do your homework, as NT is not your grandfathers Win9X OS...
Oh one more thing...
When an operating system requires that old drivers be re-written and that many applications fail to work for their 64 bit versions of their operating systems; to the point that people still prefer their 32 bit operating systems
You realize that OS X is a 32bit OS and even Snow leopard will STILL have a 32bit kernel, and this is why they won't require drivers to be recompiled for 64bit operation?
Heck MS could have stayed with Windows 3.1 and the 16bit drivers if that was their goal and just slapped paint on Windows 3.1 to allow it to run 32bit and 64bit applications, all being choked by the 16bit OS running under them. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT APPLE IS DOING by keeping OS X 32bit. But hey, their drivers don't have to be changed. Geesh.
Because Vista x64 and XP x64 are REAL and FULL 64bit OSes they get the benefits of 64bit computing 'BEYOND 64bit Memory Addressing', and this is why they run 15% faster than their 32bit counterparts.
Also if you want to make fun of 'Drivers' Vista x64 has more drivers than Windows XP 32bit does, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000x more drivers than OS X.
Talk about glass houses...