As I said here in the past - "I look forward to Windows 7 - but do not really care for what they did with it! I'm waiting on the 64 bit Windows 8 a true 64 bit OS!!!"

When they make an OS 32 and/or 64 bit - I do not believe it is complete. Too many variables to have problems with. Make it 64 bit and nothing else and I'm sold completely. We always try to make things to where it works with all the stuff from the past and expect it to work with everything new and old. Thus it does - but with certain new problems. I do not want more problems with a 64 bit system. I want a 64 bit system that is just that - 64 bit only and nothing else at all. New software with better design for just 64 bit and all.

Then and only then will I upgrade to that version and stop using XP Pro completely. Till then I'm using XP Pro for like my base system and Vista as my working desktop.

Windows 7 in my eye is nothing more than another tool for the younger and much older folks that want an easy to use system. Thus it is with limits to just that.

I've seen how the new office works with Windows 7 and again how many offices are gona upgrade because it looks better. None... People in most offices do not have the means to choose which system they use. I presently use Office 2007 Ultimate with my Vista Ultimate and Office 2003 with my XP Pro.. But I find a lot of things that does not work well with my new office - like Mobi and or PDA's. Thus I have to work to where it is saved in older formats to be used for these reasons.

So then you go with another new office - the which we are testing right now and it has another so called format too! Specially made for 64 bit! Great - but then what happens to those not using this with older systems and/or PDA's and such the like? Well of course lets upgrade again. NO chance! Most companies are very tight right at this time and it does not look good for the future either. Ours more likely will - but a lot will not. Then you try using it internationally and you have problems. Which with the company I work for does. We have offices in 12 countries and most are independent of the main offices for their own reasons. But yet still part of the large corp. structure.

I find all the time I'm online fixing something for France or Spain and they never knew what was the answer to their little problem with Office 2007. Most corp. will not upgrade again after the Vista and Office 2007 restructuring. But as I said we will and I'll have to be re-trained on all the new stuff to be able to fix all the little stuff here and there. But I know already for a fact a lot of other companies are not going to follow us into this new age.

That is my problems with Windows 7 and the new Office. I wait for true 64 bit and a true 64 bit Office and I'm buying all of that and asking my CEO to implement the use of such a system for the future. Which I have done thus far and it is agreed that we are to do just that. Next is to implement it into the field area with laptops and such database programs we use.

We are at a stage now to where that will be an easy change over to 64 bit. With all the changes in browsers and the new server 2008 we are looking at a true 64 bit system that is ready for this and other systems we use.

Just my opinion on things for the future as it fits my world of life in general here at this time and place...

Shelbygt - the 32 bit compatibility is directly from the microchips. It's not something that is emulated at a software level. When a 64 bit OS wants to run a 32 bit application, it just tells the hardware to run it in 32 bit mode. This is why there are virtually no troubles running 32 bit software in a 64 bit OS.

As I've said, I've yet to encounter this mythical 32 bit application that does not work with my 64 bit OS within the last year of using this OS.

That's a bit understandable - mobile software is often slow to update, and seems to frequently get abandoned by the authors.

That being said, I updated DataViz's Documents to Go software on my device, and it supports the new Office 2007 formats nicely .

You claim to be testing a new version of Office specifically designed for 64 bit? I am unaware of this - is this for real, or is this something theoretical?

Explorer's stupidity in refusing to save the view (I prefer Details, but apparently Microsoft has a funny definition of all in "use this view for ALL folders") and window size settings depending on which folder you're looking at, which folder you opened it on, what time of day it is, and the color of your coffee mug alone was enough for me to nuke my Vista dual boot and stick with XP. I just don't have time to be fighting my own computer; if it can't work properly and as directed, what's the point?

Why, to keep you more interested in your next computer than you are in the one in front of you

Heh. Considering that I build my own machines and get the OS free from the university, they've little to get from me in that case

at my last position we upgraded to office 2007. after first i hated the ribbon, but now i sort of miss it. i don't like the ribbon in and of itself, but now that i've been there and back again, it is a bit easier to use than the Office 2003 interface.

amen.

i enjoyed your comments on memory. i'm in a bit of a bind right now, myself.  i've got 2GB of RAM and a 512MB graphics card. the thing is, i'm looking to upgrade to a 4870X2, which has a total of 2GB of memory itself (though for all intents and purposes it's cut in half, as is the case with any X2 graphics solution). if i stick with a 32-bit OS, i'll likely only be able to address 1.5 GB of regular RAM, and that's not counting the impact a secondary graphics card will have (for running a third monitor).

i want to upgrade, but i really don't want to deal with Vista. i could get 64-bit XP pro, but it seems like a waste to buy a new copy of XP at this point in time. but on the other hand, it's frustrating to want to upgrade and need to account for the OS in the process. i hate to play the waiting game on an OS that's still pretty far off.

thinking about a Core i7 rig? they won't be able to hit 16 GB until there are 4GB DDR3 sticks, but considering it features triple channel memory, 12 GB is still pretty good.

curse you! where do you go? maybe i'll apply to grad school there.

hmm iwould upgrade but i like my Xp to much that and my comp is new already so its not worth it. plus id have to replace the mother board to accomidate the need for more RAM slots.  Oh well as I have yet to find a comp that mine could run circles around.

The sad thing is I know why it's so inconsistent. It's because Microsoft decided to merge Program Manager and File Manager way back in Windows 95, and they have been fighting over which way is the best way to view and manage the file system structure ever since.

Frankly, they should have stayed as separate applications and should not have been merged.

Every time they tweak the shell now, they make it worse.

Here are some of my observations:

• They are fighting over "expected behavior during launch." When I hit Win+E, I expect a File Manager like interface. When I launch from an icon on my desktop, I expect a Program Manager like interface. Unfortunately, now that they are "merged" they act like folders rather than separate applications.
  
• They are trying to make windows change their behavior so that it's folder based. This is instead of the alternative they were using earlier, where a window always stayed the same regardless of which folder you were displaying. I hate this. My window should never ever ever "morph" into something different. It drives me especially crazy in Vista when my hierarchy disappears because I've opened my documents.
  
• There is an eternal fight between using one window for managing files and multiple windows. I prefer the one window approach. Maybe two windows if I need to move or copy files between two locations - but I certainly do not want a dozen windows cluttering my screen.
• This is probably also the result of some "vision" to get rid of the file hierarchy. Nevermind that there was never anything wrong with the hierarchy, it just didn't fit into their plan, so they're trying to shove this new system down our throats.

More than anything this is probably some sort of internal battle over which direction the Windows shell should take in the future. I pray Windows 7 fixes this, and that we don't continue this battle in future versions of Windows.

From what I've heard, the Office team that helped create the ribbon UI is involved in the shell now, and I hope they realize what a big mess this whole thing is. I hope they come up with a better solution, because right now the Windows shell is just horrible. Too many conflicting visions of which direction they want to take it in the future.

I wouldn't recommend 64 bit XP. Hardware manufacturers never really accepted it; you are unlikely to find many drivers for it. Vista is a much better choice for 64 bit computing.

Windows 7 is the lipsticked pig of OSes, just like Sarah Palin..there's nothing under the hood that we haven't already seen and seen much better.

WinFS? Didn't think so. Instant On? Not a chance. Secure data...only if you are lucky. UAC that doesn't behave as if it was programmed by Lucifer himself and the same bizarre (and dangerous) mail client and other weak utilities and tools.

But we did get a UI that seemingly tried to thwart your productivity and DRM that can quite easily shut your PC off (NBC and the Do-Not-Broadcaast flag jog anyone's memory?) and a host of DRM related driver instabilities due to state-polling multiple times a second.

Sure 2G can be a limit, but it isn't. In fact Stardock prides itself on writing games that run on the largest percentage of platforms so there will be no 8G footprint games for a long time by their own corporate philosophy.

64-bit computing isn't necessarily faster, in fact, due to the larger words you can fill up your on chip cache much more quickly than you might expect...causing slowdows where none were before. You need to double the size of cache to make up for the double sized data being moved...much like the 12M cache on certain chips. 1M and 2M per core just won't cut it.

Speed up .NET with XP and you have an OS that can handle the next few years. Manufactured DX10 non-productivity issues not withstanding!

Lets hope they fix or delete all the broke crap before adding more broke new crap.

Why in gods name would we move to >64-bit any time soon? Theres no need 64-bit can handle up to 16 Exbibytes thats 16 Million Terabytes of Ram IIRC. Which is the main reason people are going 64-bit the 3 Gig limit in XP is not enough.

Even if the average computer would have 4 Gigabytes of Ram today it would take 22 Doubling's to need to move on or about 33 Years according to moors law, so theres no hurry.

And yes I know Moor's Law has to do with Transistor count and not Ram Storage but its the best approximation I have.

Also 128-bit CPU is not not 256-bit or at least there only working on 128-bit CPU at the moment.

Also in regards to the OP I agree its a shame 64-bit is not the Standard for OS yet. I also agree with you that Windows 7 does seem promising however I'm not going to beleive anything Microbucks says untill I have reviews proving there statments.

The cache of the Core 2 chips is more than double the cache of the P4s - plenty more than needed to make up any loss due to increased pointer size. Yes, some of Intel's chips have 12 MB caches (Q9650, Q9550, Q9450, and Q9100) - so what are you complaining about? They are already doing what you want them to do.

And quite frankly the increased amount of memory I am able to access and use without swapping to the harddrive more than makes up for any cache troubles and slightly bloated executables.

I've been tempted to audit a course at the local university just for the software discount. Not so much a factor now that I'm on Ubuntu which does everything I need save gaming, but it was nice when I was a student picking up software for $5.00 a disk - {G}.

Jonnan

 '

I was one of the people clamouring for UAC.  What can I say?  It works so well on Linux, and I maintain that it's a good design decision.  Another thing that breaks multi-tasking.  Why does it need to steal focus?  Why must it pause everything?  Why does it happen two or three times for one task?

It's interesting how many annoying things about Vista this thread has dragged up.  I still prefer it to XP, but the niggles certainly are piled high.  And so many of them are to do with stealing control from the user.

that's the whole dilemma. no use spending money on a version of XP at this point, let alone one that was poorly supported. so should i get vista? i guess it really depends on how soon i upgrade, if i get an X2 at all. but i equally loathe the idea of paying for vista when i know win7 is on the horizon, and when i'm pretty sure i'd prefer win7 to vista in a heartbeat. maybe one of my students can apply a discount on my behalf.

Faculty are generally eligible for MSDNAA access as well, if the school has it. Might want to ask your IT guy or whoever is in charge of it if he can set you up.

I disagree on the 64-bit part, Brad- my system is only a few years old and handles pretty much anything I throw at it, including Vista.  However, it is only a 32-bit P4.  I think 7 will be the last Windows OS for it, it would be too stupid to continue on with 32-bit after it, but it's too early, the driver situation is still not so hot and many consumers don't have a 64-bit CPU.

I think it is not important, whether the system is 32-bit or 64-bit. For most users is important the question: will the program XYZ work on that system or not? And the second most important question is: will I have to learn a lot, if I want to do the same things I did last several last years?

Because the second question is yes (I used tu use menus and I like them. It is simpler to search keywords than "keypictures") I don't want Windows 7 at all. It may not be the bad OS, but I don't want it, unless it gives me something really usefull. As a programmer I have enough problems with the compatibility of old operation systems.

What I would want to see in Windows 7:

1. Windows Powershell or some other usable shell installed by default on every machine, client or server.

2. A terminal window that actually supports line-based copy and paste using ctrl-insert and shift-insert keys.

3. Support for Java by installed by default on every machine, client or server.

4. Make moving and deleting files faster. On Mac OS X moving or deleting a file is a point in time. On Windows it's a period of time.

5. Repair the file system implementation to allow modification of files that are in use. Mac OS X can do it, why not Windows? Specifically, I am sick and tired of files I cannot delete because Windows _thinks_ some program is still using them. A reboot usually fixes that.

6. Fix that annoying thing were windows suddenly claim focus.

7. Install and run an SSH server by default.

And what I would want to see in Mac OS X 10.6:

1. Integrated .NET support like they did Java support. Apple can either work with Microsoft or Novell, I don't care. But I want C# support in the OS and in Xcode.

2. Windows Powershell, if point 1 is there.

3. Fix that annoying thing where windows suddenly claim focus. That only started happening with 10.5!

4. Allow Mac OS X VMs on Macintosh hardware.

5. Remote Desktop using a protocol other than the slowest version of VNC. Background remote desktop login would be useful too.

6. Run the SSH server by default. (It is installed by default.)

7. A clearer distinction between 32 bit and 64 bit. The current 64 bit support is as confusing as Windows 95 was.