An interesting nugget of info for you all, seeing as no-one has mentioned this yet.... The update will bring the Vista kernel to version 6.1.
The reason no one has mentioned this yet is because it is WRONG. I realize you're getting this info from Paul Thurrott, so it's his mistake, not yours. Both Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista will share the same kernel, and that kernel will have version 6.0 for the lifetime of both products. The build number will be incremented by one for each service pack. So, right now Vista is at version 6.0 build 6000; when Server 2008/Vista SP1 ships, they'll both be at version 6.0 build 6001; and so on.
Could this be the first step towards a future of heavily-armoured and -armed cars and trucks, complete with laser cannons and oil slick emittors, like in Steve Jackson's Car Wars game?
I hope you're not implying that you need a DX10 card to run Aero. Most cards released in the last few years will run Aero Glass just fine, with transparency and the works. It ran beautifully on my Radeon 9700 Pro which I bought in Dec 2002. That might actually be the earliest card that will run it. The basic requirements are DX9 driver support, pixel shader 2.0, and at least 64MB of memory on the card. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/under standing-windows-vista-aero-glass-requirements/
And this has nothing to do with immigration visa issues, as it is trivial to get canadians to work in the US via NAFTA.
I don't know about trivial, but pretty easy, yes (I'm a Canadian working in the US on a TN Visa.) This DOES have to do with immigration issues, but not immigration of Canadians. Think Indians, Chinese, etc. MS can't pull in people fast enough from those countries into the US due to the limited number of H1B visas available. Now MS will pull the surplus immigrants into Canada.
The tree logo belongs to Groupe Bull, a French company that bought Zenith Data Systems (or, I think all of Zenith) a long time ago. Before that, their logo was a Z that looked like it was made out of lightning bolts. Hm, in the 80s I had a Zenith eaZy-PC. Neat little machine.
It's perhaps unfortunate that MS named it XP 64-bit edition instead of something else, since now it sounds like it's just a 64-bit version of XP. It's not. It's completely different from XP. It was released 2 years later, and has a new kernel version number (5.2 rather than 5.1). It's actually a consumer-oriented version of Windows Server 2003. It has an IDENTICAL kernel to Windows Server 2003. Now realistically, how can you expect software to automatically support it? MS releases XP in 2001. Then a game comes out in 2001 or 2002, and says it runs on all versions of XP. Then MS releases an OS called XP 64-bit edition in 2003, which is fundamentally much different from XP.
What I was saying was that NTVDM does not use the virtual 8086 mode of the processor, but rather provides a 100% software based emulation. This makes all of your spiel about how the virtual 8086 mode works irrelevant. I was not disputing how virtual 8086 mode works, I was saying that NTVDM doesn't use it! However, another poster already corrected me about that point roughly a day before you did, and I accept that correction. So NTVDM does not provide 100% software based emulation; it uses some hardware support. My main point stands that Vista (32-bit) does include NTVDM and does run DOS/Win16 apps; the OP claimed that this wasn't so.
You are probably correct that there is a hardware reason for omitting NTVDM from 64-bit Windows. (I was told by a superior that it was purely a strategic decision, but that person could have been wrong.) Whetever the reason, my main point stands that Vista DOES include ntvdm.exe and it DOES run those old DOS/Win16 apps. The poster I was replying to was trying to spread FUD about Vista.
The summary stated, "x64 Vista versions don't support legacy 16-bit code". That means Win 3.x or MS-DOS era stuff (of which there is still a depressingly large amount in use). The summary is correct in that Vista does not support running such code. But the summary is misleading in that the reason Vista doesn't support it is that nothing supports it: When in "long mode" (64-bit mode), x86-64 processors cannot execute 16-bit code. It's a hardware limitation, not a software thing.
No, it's not a hardware limitation, it's a "software thing". Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista do NOT execute 16-bit code in the hardware! It's done though emulation using NTVDM ("NT virtual DOS machine"), which is simply a Windows application. It's still there in 32-bit Vista. With the 64-bit OSes -- XP 64-bit, Server 2003 64-bit, Vista 64-bit -- Microsoft has CHOSEN to omit ntvdm.exe. They see the move to a 64-bit OS as an opportunity to weed out certain legacy support. They've been hesitant to do this in the 32-bit OS because of the perceived need to maintain backwards compatibility up the ying yang. Really, no other vendor comes close in terms of backwards compatibility. On 32-bit Vista you can still run 25 year old DOS binaries. In principle, I mean. Sure there might be specific legacy binaries that aren't compatible, but that's because they're doing very low level things directly with the hardware. A lot of that is emulated in NTVDM, such as keyboard, mouse, and video I/O, even SoundBlaster and Ad Lib sound card I/O, but obviously not everything can be emulated.
Your post is a lot of Windows bashing, all of it emotion-driven and without facts to back i up. I want to refute one of your major points because it is entirely wrong:
The 8-core Mac Pro is stupendous -- you can't even run XP on an 8-core system, period -- you'd need Windows Server Enterprise Edition for that. OS X runs happily on 8 cores without any special uber-expensive edition license... as long as those 8 cores reside in hardware that came from Cupertino, of course.
Microsoft actually change their licensing policy a few years ago, when dual-core processors were looming. They now license per "processor", meaning per physical package, rather than per core. Personally I have no idea why they did this, but it strikes me as generous. I'll take it. Read about it here: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx. The end result is that XP Pro systems CAN run 8 cores if it's in two quad-core packages like the Mac Pro you mentioned. And even lowly XP Home can run 4 cores in a quad-core package. This is stated plainly in the FAQ at the above link. Now I don't know how many people out there have quad-core packages, but I'm sure lots have dual-core. I don't even have a dual-core so I can't confirm. But can somebody out there confirm that they are running a dual-core successfully with XP Home, or even two dual-cores successfully with XP Pro? Anyone running quad-core?
You have it backwards. If we stuck with the summer notion of time (DST) all year round, the sun would set at 5:30 in mid-winter. Think about what you do during "fall back". You look at your watch, suppose it says 5:30, so you change it to 4:30. If you hadn't changed it, it would still read 5:30.
Yes they put "HoTMaiL" in both the title and footer, but nowhere else. It's just "Hotmail" in about a thousand other places. If you follow the links to the FAQ, the company history, etc., it's all "Hotmail" everywhere. So at best, they were momentarily tinkering with the look they wanted, and the "HoTMaiL" usage did not end up being established.
Mac OS has had this far longer than NT alternate streams, they are basically the old "data" and "resource" forks of the Classic Mac era. Mac OS X still uses them.
No they are not basically the old "data" and "resource" forks of the Classic Mac era. They are far more flexible, allowing any application to create and use any number of arbitrarily named streams in a file. The difference is like being able to create files named whatever you want inside a directory, or only being able to create files named "A" or "B". If Apple had envisioned the usefulness of this, they would have done it first. As usual, Microsoft is thinking of developers, while Apple is only thinking about their own uses. Now with regards to general purposes streams/forks, NTFS had this feature since inception with NT 3.1 in 1993. Mac added support only with HFS+ in 1998. So my post is a statement of fact, not a troll. Apple copied this feature from Microsoft. Quite often it's the other way around, fair enough, but not in this case. Copying definitely goes both ways.
I've been following the digital camera industry closely for the past few years. We had 3 megapixels, then 4, 5, etc. Now they're blowing that out of the water with a 0.000001 megapixel camera!!! Amazing! There's no frinkin way they're topping this, baby! I guess with ongoing advances in miniaturization, maybe someday they'll find a way to cram 0.000000001 gigapixels into a camera. Today, such a camera would be the size of house.
You might want to go back and re-read the problem. The problem is not when dragging and dropping 30,000 files; it's with dragging and dropping 97,000 files. When will they address the 97,000 file problem???
Slashdot Mirror
The reason no one has mentioned this yet is because it is WRONG. I realize you're getting this info from Paul Thurrott, so it's his mistake, not yours. Both Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista will share the same kernel, and that kernel will have version 6.0 for the lifetime of both products. The build number will be incremented by one for each service pack. So, right now Vista is at version 6.0 build 6000; when Server 2008/Vista SP1 ships, they'll both be at version 6.0 build 6001; and so on.
... in honour of Newfoundland.
Could this be the first step towards a future of heavily-armoured and -armed cars and trucks, complete with laser cannons and oil slick emittors, like in Steve Jackson's Car Wars game?
I hope you're not implying that you need a DX10 card to run Aero. Most cards released in the last few years will run Aero Glass just fine, with transparency and the works. It ran beautifully on my Radeon 9700 Pro which I bought in Dec 2002. That might actually be the earliest card that will run it. The basic requirements are DX9 driver support, pixel shader 2.0, and at least 64MB of memory on the card. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/under standing-windows-vista-aero-glass-requirements/
I don't know about trivial, but pretty easy, yes (I'm a Canadian working in the US on a TN Visa.) This DOES have to do with immigration issues, but not immigration of Canadians. Think Indians, Chinese, etc. MS can't pull in people fast enough from those countries into the US due to the limited number of H1B visas available. Now MS will pull the surplus immigrants into Canada.
The tree logo belongs to Groupe Bull, a French company that bought Zenith Data Systems (or, I think all of Zenith) a long time ago. Before that, their logo was a Z that looked like it was made out of lightning bolts. Hm, in the 80s I had a Zenith eaZy-PC. Neat little machine.
It's perhaps unfortunate that MS named it XP 64-bit edition instead of something else, since now it sounds like it's just a 64-bit version of XP. It's not. It's completely different from XP. It was released 2 years later, and has a new kernel version number (5.2 rather than 5.1). It's actually a consumer-oriented version of Windows Server 2003. It has an IDENTICAL kernel to Windows Server 2003. Now realistically, how can you expect software to automatically support it? MS releases XP in 2001. Then a game comes out in 2001 or 2002, and says it runs on all versions of XP. Then MS releases an OS called XP 64-bit edition in 2003, which is fundamentally much different from XP.
We're gonna see some serious [STUFF]!
Drop a pack of playing cards on it?
What I was saying was that NTVDM does not use the virtual 8086 mode of the processor, but rather provides a 100% software based emulation. This makes all of your spiel about how the virtual 8086 mode works irrelevant. I was not disputing how virtual 8086 mode works, I was saying that NTVDM doesn't use it! However, another poster already corrected me about that point roughly a day before you did, and I accept that correction. So NTVDM does not provide 100% software based emulation; it uses some hardware support. My main point stands that Vista (32-bit) does include NTVDM and does run DOS/Win16 apps; the OP claimed that this wasn't so.
You are probably correct that there is a hardware reason for omitting NTVDM from 64-bit Windows. (I was told by a superior that it was purely a strategic decision, but that person could have been wrong.) Whetever the reason, my main point stands that Vista DOES include ntvdm.exe and it DOES run those old DOS/Win16 apps. The poster I was replying to was trying to spread FUD about Vista.
No, it's not a hardware limitation, it's a "software thing". Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista do NOT execute 16-bit code in the hardware! It's done though emulation using NTVDM ("NT virtual DOS machine"), which is simply a Windows application. It's still there in 32-bit Vista. With the 64-bit OSes -- XP 64-bit, Server 2003 64-bit, Vista 64-bit -- Microsoft has CHOSEN to omit ntvdm.exe. They see the move to a 64-bit OS as an opportunity to weed out certain legacy support. They've been hesitant to do this in the 32-bit OS because of the perceived need to maintain backwards compatibility up the ying yang. Really, no other vendor comes close in terms of backwards compatibility. On 32-bit Vista you can still run 25 year old DOS binaries. In principle, I mean. Sure there might be specific legacy binaries that aren't compatible, but that's because they're doing very low level things directly with the hardware. A lot of that is emulated in NTVDM, such as keyboard, mouse, and video I/O, even SoundBlaster and Ad Lib sound card I/O, but obviously not everything can be emulated.
The 8-core Mac Pro is stupendous -- you can't even run XP on an 8-core system, period -- you'd need Windows Server Enterprise Edition for that. OS X runs happily on 8 cores without any special uber-expensive edition license... as long as those 8 cores reside in hardware that came from Cupertino, of course.
Microsoft actually change their licensing policy a few years ago, when dual-core processors were looming. They now license per "processor", meaning per physical package, rather than per core. Personally I have no idea why they did this, but it strikes me as generous. I'll take it. Read about it here: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mul
You have it backwards. If we stuck with the summer notion of time (DST) all year round, the sun would set at 5:30 in mid-winter. Think about what you do during "fall back". You look at your watch, suppose it says 5:30, so you change it to 4:30. If you hadn't changed it, it would still read 5:30.
Wow, so what would that be... damn near 28%?
Yes they put "HoTMaiL" in both the title and footer, but nowhere else. It's just "Hotmail" in about a thousand other places. If you follow the links to the FAQ, the company history, etc., it's all "Hotmail" everywhere. So at best, they were momentarily tinkering with the look they wanted, and the "HoTMaiL" usage did not end up being established.
No it was always just Hotmail, without the funky capitalization. You're thinking of HoTMetaL, which was a WYSIWYG authoring tool for HTML pages.
What about ludicrous speed??? Can you get to it through the GUI?
No they are not basically the old "data" and "resource" forks of the Classic Mac era. They are far more flexible, allowing any application to create and use any number of arbitrarily named streams in a file. The difference is like being able to create files named whatever you want inside a directory, or only being able to create files named "A" or "B". If Apple had envisioned the usefulness of this, they would have done it first. As usual, Microsoft is thinking of developers, while Apple is only thinking about their own uses. Now with regards to general purposes streams/forks, NTFS had this feature since inception with NT 3.1 in 1993. Mac added support only with HFS+ in 1998. So my post is a statement of fact, not a troll. Apple copied this feature from Microsoft. Quite often it's the other way around, fair enough, but not in this case. Copying definitely goes both ways.
Yet another case of Apple quietly copying Microsoft.
This guy saw saw the name of the act, CAN-SPAM, and thought: cool! Shouldn't the act be called CANT-SPAM?
I've been following the digital camera industry closely for the past few years. We had 3 megapixels, then 4, 5, etc. Now they're blowing that out of the water with a 0.000001 megapixel camera!!! Amazing! There's no frinkin way they're topping this, baby! I guess with ongoing advances in miniaturization, maybe someday they'll find a way to cram 0.000000001 gigapixels into a camera. Today, such a camera would be the size of house.
You might want to go back and re-read the problem. The problem is not when dragging and dropping 30,000 files; it's with dragging and dropping 97,000 files. When will they address the 97,000 file problem???
Not quite correct. The
They meet in Coca-Cola commercials all the time!