Re: 64bit - Memory AND disk space!  YOu run into a 2tb limit on the disk space (I understand about going to a larger sector size, but that is a waste).

Except for the ribbon, I agree with the points. The ribbon isn't bad, but I miss the options to consolidate what I use and get rid of what I don't.

Something just kills me how many Windows afficianados love that ribbon, inasmuch as the ribbon feels (to me) like the Gimp interface that I have heard so many windows people talk about how they hate it passionately over the years.

I'm fine with both of them btw - I just think it's funny.

{G} - Jonnan

YES. FUCK YES.

Sorry.

That's my biggest complaint about Vista, honestly.  (And I've had many.)

Soooo..... Vista was the Windows Me for Windows 7?

Sorry if this question appears dense.

I want a copy of Windows 7 to try as well!

Businesses are going to be hard-pressed to upgrade all their equipment and software to accomodate a 64b-only OS.  I don't see it happening for a long, long time.  There is zero incentive for me to abandon what not only works, but is necessary for critical business functions.  The app vendors are going to expect big bucks for upgrades that I can't afford & won't buy.

I wouldn't even bother worrying what businesses adopt , no matter what OS it is they are late to upgrade to it. Be it Vista or WS2008. Even hardware wise they are slow on adoption. As it stands right now WS2008 is the last server OS to have a 32-bit/64-bit version. From now on server-side operating systems will be strictly 64-bit, but with that being said they can run 32-bit applications flawlessly.

 It honestly wouldn't surprise me that Windows 7 could be the last 32-bit only OS. I thought for sure Vista would be, but I have a feeling with the amount of users making the switch from XP 32-bit to Vista 64-bit we might be seeing the last 32-bit workstation OS. Windows 7 could very well be the turning point, but like anything it may flop and it may end up being 4+ years before 64-bit becomes the industry standard.

I don't understand why this 64-bit only OS deal hasn't hit years before, like... when 64-bit processors actually came out?! It seems like a hit or miss situation that anything works 64-bit or how game developers for the LONGEST time have been capped at only 2 gigs when motherboards are well able to go over 8 gigs or more! Still... despite the new OS big M's pulling out, I don't see a big change for it to do anything as far as a great advance may occur.

Sorta like DX10, it's here... but what's being done with it?

Also when W7 comes out... what's that mean for everyone who's using Vista Ultimate now?

Well I have a few things I'd like them to sort out.  

Everything pausing because I put a scratched CD in the drive or accidentally clicked on the floppy symbol when it's empty. Ok, I could turn off autorun, but really, what happened to multi-tasking?

Folder views.  I set everything to list, because I like list.  I agree that icons that show you what is inside the folder and maybe give you a preview are very nice and useful and impressive.  I still prefer list, I can get around quicker that way.  So, when I do 'apply to all folders', why are there so many that refuse to take list as their default?

The whole user-specific folders mess.  I would like some restriction on where exactly programs can put their stuff, so that AppData actually goes into AppData and doesn't just sit arbitrarily in my user space root.  The main thing I have learned is that my documents should never ever go into My Documents, because it's too full of clutter, so I'll never find them again.

How about the ability to Multitask, in Vista 64 Ultimate any application has the ability to steal focus. I have to shut down everything to play a game and I can't start Outlook in the background and continue to browse, sadly pathetic.

Simon

This is already available to developers. It appears they're going to use it in more applications in Windows 7, possibly including Wordpad and Paint.

Not that I ever use Wordpad or paint. Wordpad doesn't even have a simple spell check, and Paint is seriously underpowered.

Agreed. Or at least make it the default.

Surely you've heard of Autoruns. Yes, it would be nice to have it as part of the OS rather than a separate application.

Live Mesh. 'nuff said. It looks like a lot more will be announced at PDC.

Such hardware is becoming difficult to find. In order to get past Microsoft's WHQL labs and get the "Designed for Windows" logo approved to be used on your products, you must have 64 bit drivers. It is already a requirement for all new hardware.

Well, the Quick Access toolbar can be customized. One of the major problems with previous versions of office was that more people destroyed their interface and didn't know how to reset it than actually knew and used the customization features. Turns out total customization was quite rare.

You can blame stupid/lazy users for this "little bit of UI authoritarianism."

I see 64 bit happening across the board in the consumer market. Major OEMs are already making it available and even the default for new consumer PCs.

Businesses have always been slow anyways. I've heard that quite a few businesses are still using Windows 2000.

Totally, completely agreed. This whole folder view thing is a royal mess. I keep banging my head on this. It's absurdly inconsistent and loves to forget settings. There's no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. It needs to be fixed.

Agreed. It is annoying.

Developers: My documents is for my documents. it is not for your program settings or a place to put customization features. Please do not place anything in there.

Windows ME was made and released because MS had to fill time and space until there were enough device drivers available for the Win2K kernel. MS does not write the device drivers the hardware vendors do, even for the ones that ship with the Windows disks. So when vendors don't want to under take the efforts to write drivers for a newer Windows kernel MS id forced to create some sort of interim version until such time as drivers catch up with the technology.

That is in part the case with 64-bit drivers now. But Vista was not released to fiull a catch-up gap in drivers as ME was. However in a less technical manner Vista will becaome one of those "wish we hadn't released" products like ME and Bob, and several other products that just embarass developers at MS.

So let me ask a question of Brad and others. I have the ability to run Vista 64 but my system is an Intel P965M chipset and the BIOS doesn't support the memory remapping function to allow me to set my RAM between 3 and 4 GB to a higher address. That means that even though I have 4 GB I cannot access that last GIG regardless of 64-bit O/S or not. I have verified this with both Vista 64 and several 2.6.5x and highed Lynux flavors. All my hardware is fully supported with 64-bit drivers.

I primarily use my PC for gaming and email and surfing. And of course my Object Desktop decorations.

Should I still go to Vista 64 or not?

I hope that windows 7 gives the ability for any version to log into a domain server...  It irritated me that windows vista did not allow several of my computers to log into my domain server because they were "Home" versions.  Some homes have networks...

Windows ME (Mistake Edition) was a pile of junk. Even MS admitted to that. WinME was a "novalty" OS that was released at the turn of the century. WinME was nothing more then a hacked up version of 98, and that hack job caused nothing but issues.

Now, for the 32<>64bit debate, I agree that the move should be made to 64bit, but still allow backwards combatibility for 32bit apps. I know we all should move forward, but there are certian apps/games that I myself just cant let go. For example, I FINALLY moved passed the origional version of MusicMatch jukebox (the one before yahoo obtained it). This was the last great release, which only ran on XP.

Also, most of us still have only 32bit procs in there machines, and dont really have the funds to go out and buy the new hardware, so the choice of 32 or 64bit is nice. I had a 64bit machine with vista ultimate 64 and ultimate 32 installed (was doing some tests as to which I liked more) and yes, 64bit version was faster, more stable, and still ran my 32bit apps, but when it ran my 32bit apps, it had compatibility issues (most of my games and apps are ment for 32bit) where the 32bit version OS didnt. It was this reason that my now current machine is 32bit only.

Lets not forget cost. Yes, some vendors allow free upgrades for there software (so you can get the 64bit version of it), but some put it off until the next major release (which you have to pay for), and the only big change that thay made was 64bit support. This is the other reason why I am still using 32bit. What I have works for me, so I dont see the need to purchase new software for just the 64bit support.

On the other hand, 64bit offers things that 32 just cant. Greater speed, reliability, and greater hardware advances. Almost all major vendors now support both 64 and 32bit platforms, so drivers are not an issue. The only thing really that is holding back 64bit is the apps (or should I say the people that code them) themselves. Once everybody finally gets onboard the 64bit train, only THEN will we be ready for 128 or 264bit platforms.

We all must move forward, that much is known, but until all of the programers, coders, developers, ect. get it together and release 64bit only software, I am perfectly happy with my 32bit setup.

For me, that's pretty close to telling a pastry chef who's just been diagnosed diabetic that Splenda is a lot like sugar. Technically accurate, but pretty much cruel in its fullness.

Instead of being able to create and place my own toolbars, including menus with custom keyboard paths for complex tasks, I'm left in an amputated state where I can have at most 10 quickly keyboard-accessible single commands. The ribbon doesn't even want you to try to learn a keyboard task path--there's no way to leave the accelerator keys called out in the UI.

I don't know if Microsoft actually have any involvement with it, but I think they should bundle Paint.Net with Windows.

64 bit will allow use of all 4 GB and access to 64 bit registers, so there is still some benefit. I don't think it's a big enough benefit to warrant completely replacing the OS on an existing system, though. The best thing to do is to upgrade to 64 bit when you buy a new computer.

You'd be surprised how much hardware now supports 64 bit. The later Pentium 4s and all of the Core 2s support 64 bits. Pretty much anything from Intel or AMD that you buy new is going to support 64 bits.

This is exactly what is being done in 64 bit Vista. Other than a firewall and a bluetooth driver when Vista was first released, I have yet to encounter an application that does not work on my 64 bit OS. The mythical "application that does not work in 64 bit Vista" has yet to show up within the last year of using it. All of my 32 bit applications currently work with no complaints. I don't think about my OS being 64 bit when I buy software anymore.

In addition, finding hardware is easy: I just look for the (works with/certified for) Windows Vista logo. That tells me that Microsoft has checked the drivers for certain minimum requirements, which include making sure that that 64 bit drivers are available. In addition, hardware manufacturers have been doing a great job getting their drivers out. My bluetooth device now has real drivers rather than hackish workarounds. So all of my hardware, including some rather old stuff, now has 64 bit drivers and I can confidently say that compatibility is really no longer an issue.

MrBlackWar: You completely do not understand the situation. You do not need 64 bit applications to take advantage of 64 bit computing. Even 32 bit applications can benefit if you have several of them running at the same time.

Let's say I have two 32 bit applications, and each one uses 3 GB of memory. I can't run both of them at the same time in a 32 bit OS, since I can't have 6 GB of memory on a 32 bit system. But I can run both of them at the same time in a 64 bit OS with 6 or more GB of memory. I benefit from having a 64 bit OS even if I'm just running 32 bit applications.

Actually you might be able to with the PAE switch enabled. But there is a downside, the kernel has to manage that additional memory table which will reduce overall performance a bit.

Every time there is a new Version of Windows there is a small crowd saying, "yay, I'm looking forward to THIS version!  Its going to be everything the LAST version wasn't"

Maybe I'm old and cynical, or maybe I've seen this statement every time there is a new windows...   from 3 to 95, 98, 2000...  and thats just the Desktop versions...  I finally gave up at XP.  Anyway I'm not going to argue with people on the internet.  Suffice it to say, XP wasn't everything it was cracked up to be.  Vista, well do I need to say anything?  I'm not holding my breath for "Windows 7".

Okay, I have to get a dig in...  Stardock and Ironclad, can you guys start publishing on Mac as well?  They have the Lions Share of the Notebook Market, and if you look at retail sales only, they have 15% of the market.  That and I wouldn't have to dual boot anymore!!!    

Snazzed