I guess I will have Windows XP and see what is after Windows 7.
Why? Are you seriously too confused by this?The#1Spot wrote:
I guess I will have Windows XP and see what is after Windows 7.
As I said before, we want one, maybe two versions of Windows. Home and Profession, both x64 only.
Last edited by ghettoperson (2009-02-05 15:27:48)
That is correct.Jenspm wrote:
if it supported more than 4GB of system ram, it wouldn't be 32 bit.GR34 wrote:
well the only way they could keep 32-bit is if they made it support more then 2.7XXX GB's of ram and did not calculate Vram into the equation. My little brothers computer has a Q9400(iam going to get the same) 4 gigs of ram and a 4850 1gb and XP will only recognize like 1.2GB's of ram Its Fing gay. So thats y I got him vista ultimate x64
At least that's how I think it is. 2^32 = 4 294 967 296 which is approx 4 giga.
A CPU with a 32bit address-space can address a maximum of 4gigabytes of RAM.
Be that 'RAM' physical, mapped, or virtual.
Who are "we?"ghettoperson wrote:
As I said before, we want one, maybe two versions of Windows. Home and Profession, both x64 only.
Do you also get confused with all the available flavours from the same company when you buy soda? I don't get this. You essentially have two relevant operating systems that will be marketed. Same as with XP. The other versions are corporate or niche releases, and if you're afraid of this illusion of choice, then you really shouldn't be buying an operating system on your own.
Indeed, "we" are morons.mikkel wrote:
Who are "we?"ghettoperson wrote:
As I said before, we want one, maybe two versions of Windows. Home and Profession, both x64 only.
Do you also get confused with all the available flavours from the same company when you buy soda? I don't get this. You essentially have two relevant operating systems that will be marketed. Same as with XP. The other versions are corporate or niche releases, and if you're afraid of this illusion of choice, then you really shouldn't be buying an operating system on your own.
We would be the majority of users that thought that having a million different versions was stupid, and just another way for MS to get more money out of us. I'm not confused in the slightest, I just think that all the 'niche' features should be left for the high end version, and everything else should be in the regular version.mikkel wrote:
Who are "we?"ghettoperson wrote:
As I said before, we want one, maybe two versions of Windows. Home and Profession, both x64 only.
Do you also get confused with all the available flavours from the same company when you buy soda? I don't get this. You essentially have two relevant operating systems that will be marketed. Same as with XP. The other versions are corporate or niche releases, and if you're afraid of this illusion of choice, then you really shouldn't be buying an operating system on your own.
You've got the wrong idea of who the majority are. The majority get their OEM Home Premium and don't care about it at all. They get what they need, and they're happy. The majority of the people who know which features they need, and which features they don't, they'll get Home Premium or Professional. How many choices are that? A full two. How many choices did XP afford you as a normal home user? Two.ghettoperson wrote:
We would be the majority of users that thought that having a million different versions was stupid, and just another way for MS to get more money out of us. I'm not confused in the slightest, I just think that all the 'niche' features should be left for the high end version, and everything else should be in the regular version.mikkel wrote:
Who are "we?"ghettoperson wrote:
As I said before, we want one, maybe two versions of Windows. Home and Profession, both x64 only.
Do you also get confused with all the available flavours from the same company when you buy soda? I don't get this. You essentially have two relevant operating systems that will be marketed. Same as with XP. The other versions are corporate or niche releases, and if you're afraid of this illusion of choice, then you really shouldn't be buying an operating system on your own.
Then there's the very vocal minority who bitch and moan about having three different choices, where they once had two. They cry and whine about the "millions" of choices they're now presented with, and how it's extortion that there's now a third, more expensive version sporting features that they'll likely never need.
You say the niche features should be left for the high end version. If you took two minutes and read the article before complaining, you'd find that that's precisely what the high end version offers. The two main versions have almost identical feature separation to Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-05 17:12:02)
Microsoft has over 1 billion customers.. they have different needs. This entire argument is ridiculous until we know for sure what the pricing is.
Side note:
What is wrong with that picture? ..lol
Side note:
What is wrong with that picture? ..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Close it if you like. Re-open or just follow through with a new topic closer to release date.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
so whats the max for x64 then? I know its not 8gigsScorpion0x17 wrote:
That is correct.Jenspm wrote:
if it supported more than 4GB of system ram, it wouldn't be 32 bit.GR34 wrote:
well the only way they could keep 32-bit is if they made it support more then 2.7XXX GB's of ram and did not calculate Vram into the equation. My little brothers computer has a Q9400(iam going to get the same) 4 gigs of ram and a 4850 1gb and XP will only recognize like 1.2GB's of ram Its Fing gay. So thats y I got him vista ultimate x64
At least that's how I think it is. 2^32 = 4 294 967 296 which is approx 4 giga.
A CPU with a 32bit address-space can address a maximum of 4gigabytes of RAM.
Be that 'RAM' physical, mapped, or virtual.
Jenspm just showed you. It's 2^64. 2^64 = 18 446 744 073 709 551 616. (18 446 744 073 709 551 616 / (1024^6)) = 16 Exabyte, or 17 179 869 184 Gigabyte.GR34 wrote:
so whats the max for x64 then? I know its not 8gigsScorpion0x17 wrote:
That is correct.Jenspm wrote:
if it supported more than 4GB of system ram, it wouldn't be 32 bit.
At least that's how I think it is. 2^32 = 4 294 967 296 which is approx 4 giga.
A CPU with a 32bit address-space can address a maximum of 4gigabytes of RAM.
Be that 'RAM' physical, mapped, or virtual.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-06 03:40:01)
mikkel wrote:
Jenspm just showed you. It's 2^64. 2^64 = 18 446 744 073 709 551 616. (18 446 744 073 709 551 616 / (1024^6)) = 16 Exabyte, or 17 179 869 184 Gigabyte.GR34 wrote:
so whats the max for x64 then? I know its not 8gigsScorpion0x17 wrote:
That is correct.
A CPU with a 32bit address-space can address a maximum of 4gigabytes of RAM.
Be that 'RAM' physical, mapped, or virtual.
Or, 4GB2...mikkel wrote:
Jenspm just showed you. It's 2^64. 2^64 = 18 446 744 073 709 551 616. (18 446 744 073 709 551 616 / (1024^6)) = 16 Exabyte, or 17 179 869 184 Gigabyte.GR34 wrote:
so whats the max for x64 then? I know its not 8gigsScorpion0x17 wrote:
That is correct.
A CPU with a 32bit address-space can address a maximum of 4gigabytes of RAM.
Be that 'RAM' physical, mapped, or virtual.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
2^64=(2^32)*(2^32) (for the hard of thinking)
Spoiler (highlight to read):
the brackets are for clarity (for the annoyingly pedantic)
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-06 16:12:51)
Vista's capped at 16 or 32GiB though.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Cheez wrote:
Vista's capped at 16 or 32GiB though.
Microsoft wrote:
Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2008
The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2008. Limits greater than 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.
Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in 64-bit Windows Windows Server 2008 Datacenter (full installation) 64 GB 2 TB Windows Server 2008 Datacenter (Server Core installation) 64 GB 2 TB Windows Server 2008 Enterprise 64 GB 2 TB Windows Server 2008 HPC Edition Not applicable 128 GB Windows Server 2008 Standard 4 GB 32 GB Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-Based Systems Not applicable 2 TB Windows Web Server 2008 4 GB 32 GB
(hmm... why does "The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista." display, next to the link, like that???)Microsoft wrote:
Physical Memory Limits: Windows VistaThe following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista.
Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in 64-bit Windows Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB Windows Vista Starter 1 GB Not applicable
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-06 16:29:58)
No takers?Kmarion wrote:
What is wrong with that picture? ..lol
Can anyone tell me why they call it Windows 7?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm sure they'll change it to 7.0.7000 once it goes RTM. It is a little weird though. I would have expected them to call it 7.0.6000somethingKmarion wrote:
No takers?
Can anyone tell me why they call it Windows 7?
Last edited by max (2009-02-07 20:48:15)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
It doesnt add up to seven any way you count it though..lol.
Lets see. Numbers in order "Windows 3" for example. Random Letters "XP", Names "Vista", By year "Millennium" Windows 98".
Horrible marketing.. funny.
Lets see. Numbers in order "Windows 3" for example. Random Letters "XP", Names "Vista", By year "Millennium" Windows 98".
Horrible marketing.. funny.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Works for me
1- Win 1
2- Win 2
3- Win 3
NT 3.1
4- NT4
5- ME (NT5)
XP (NT5.2)
6- Vista (NT6)
7- Win 7 (NT7)
EDIT: Actually Win 7 is listed as NT6.1 on wiki ... now I'm confused too
shit
1- Win 1
2- Win 2
3- Win 3
NT 3.1
4- NT4
5- ME (NT5)
XP (NT5.2)
6- Vista (NT6)
7- Win 7 (NT7)
EDIT: Actually Win 7 is listed as NT6.1 on wiki ... now I'm confused too
shit
Last edited by max (2009-02-07 21:08:20)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
I'm not making this up. I've heard from some popular techies.. you've got to do some serious manipulations to make it work as "7".max wrote:
Works for me
1- Win 1
2- Win 2
3- Win 3
NT 3.1
4- NT4
5- ME (NT5)
XP (NT5.2)
6- Vista (NT6)
7- Win 7 (NT7)
EDIT: Actually Win 7 is listed as NT6.1 on wiki ... now I'm confused too
shit
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Should have just called it Windows 11. Take that OSX
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
I found Leo Laporte talking about it in my podcast library.
http://stormsurge.us/windows7/windows7.html
It's almost exactly what I said..lol.
http://stormsurge.us/windows7/windows7.html
It's almost exactly what I said..lol.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
NT isn't just a random letters ...
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.