It contains links to their other feature presentations at top. Mostly pictures, not that much text but it's a fast look at some of the stuff in Windows 7. Not all new of course, but updated.
That is kind if funny. Because Cisco's VPN client did not work with Vista either, well until a updated version was released. Can't help you though. I think the problem is related to the x64 version or are you running x86? Saw a post on neowin but no solution yet. http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=721036
It doesn't have any real new features thus why you cant find anything mentioning them. It will still have the same problems that Vista has as mentioned on http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html and so I will not be using it or Vista as my home OS, ever.
I suppose it would have been better if the primary home entertainment OS couldn't playback entertainment media.
Ignorance and FUD sure looks good, don't it?
Yeah, Cisco hasn't released a 64-bit version of their VPN stuff yet. And I don't think they plan to for a while. And because Microsoft encourage their laziness by releasing 32-bit OSs, this situation has not impetus to change for the better.
Windows 7 should only be 64-bit because even all computers you buy new with Vista are 64-bit, and you aren't going to want to run it on slow 32-bit processors. All Microsoft does with a 32-bit version is hurt the industry, confuse customers and encourage 32-bit laziness among software and hardware vendors. Not good.
Well there are hundreds of developers not having 64-bit version available for long time, take Firefox and Adobe Flash f.e. Even if these work without problems on Windows x64, it doesn't seem like they are in a hurry to work on the 64-bit side. There is a x64 version of Firefox, but it is a inofficial build afaik. With Firefox, you would need to have all add-ons coded for x64 separately too.
Overall I agree with you, but the transition does take time it seems. Many applications don't benefit anything practically from switching to x64. For others even I have noticed speed improvements (like for 7-Zip x64).
What Microsoft needs to do is promote their x64 versions harder, it is Microsoft that can make the change go faster. I hope they do that with Windows 7.
Well there are hundreds of developers not having 64-bit version available for long time, take Firefox and Adobe Flash f.e. Even if these work without problems on Windows x64, it doesn't seem like they are in a hurry to work on the 64-bit side. There is a x64 version of Firefox, but it is a inofficial build afaik. With Firefox, you would need to have all add-ons coded for x64 separately too.
Overall I agree with you, but the transition does take time it seems. Many applications don't benefit anything practically from switching to x64. For others even I have noticed speed improvements (like for 7-Zip x64).
What Microsoft needs to do is promote their x64 versions harder, it is Microsoft that can make the change go faster. I hope they do that with Windows 7.
Apps really dont need to be 64 bit unless they use alot of memory.
The current "64 bit OS" just means a larger address space.
The CPU instruction set is still 32bit, and therefore the only advantage to 64 bit really is the the size of available memory. 64 bit only begins to pay off after roughly 4GB
Now, current systems 4GB is the norm (and the limit in most cases). Newer machines use triple channel ram so the base is 6GB. Flash forward 1 year. The norm will be 32GB, 64 bit OS'es will be assumed.
The OS is able to use that RAM even if the apps arent built to use it.
as an aside .NET apps run in native 64 bit mode. Java apps can sort-of, but there is no certified 64 bit JVM that is *fully functional* atm. I think the current one doesnt support Java Web Start
I suppose it would have been better if the primary home entertainment OS couldn't playback entertainment media.
Ignorance and FUD sure looks good, don't it?
It's not like MS wanted the DRM in there... =/
Voice of reason. I dont know where they get that stuff...DRM has been on my machine for a year and a half via the evil vista, and I have encountered it exatly 0 times.
Anyhow if you dont like it, Apple Inc, -----> thataway
I agree, I don't want to listen to a droll conversation, I'd rather read it. =p
Well, the guy explains the fundamental changes in the core OS. It was meant for technical folks.
For instance eliminating the spinlock that was a bottleneck for multicpu operation, and subsequent elimination of coarse grained locking of memory pages.
If you think the OS is just fluff changes...(which I did at first)...then you should watch. If you dont watch - then say its all just fluff - then you are misinformed.
Voice of reason. I dont know where they get that stuff...DRM has been on my machine for a year and a half via the evil vista, and I have encountered it exatly 0 times.
Anyhow if you dont like it, Apple Inc, -----> thataway
Uhm, DRM is Apple's baby, what makes you think they won't have it in there?
.aac files, from the itunes store, use apple's own drm, and have, for as long as itunes has been around....
Apps really dont need to be 64 bit unless they use alot of memory.
The CPU instruction set is still 32bit, and therefore the only advantage to 64 bit really is the the size of available memory. 64 bit only begins to pay off after roughly 4GB
Now, current systems 4GB is the norm (and the limit in most cases). Newer machines use triple channel ram so the base is 6GB. Flash forward 1 year. The norm will be 32GB, 64 bit OS'es will be assumed.
I thought that was about what I wrote, but yeah.
And as for flashing forward 1 year, wouldn't Windows 7 be Microsoft's current OS? Which means it would be appropriate for them to start pushing for the x64 version more?
Anyway I don't really have any big benefits from using x64 version, but it is somewhat more secure and there are no big problems from using it (except from Creative and X-Fi drivers not being very good).
And as for flashing forward 1 year, wouldn't Windows 7 be Microsoft's current OS? Which means it would be appropriate for them to start pushing for the x64 version more?
Anyway I don't really have any big benefits from using x64 version, but it is somewhat more secure and there are no big problems from using it (except from Creative and X-Fi drivers not being very good).
Ive read about some MS engineer guy saying they already wanted Vista as 64bit only, but they had to trash that quite early because the PC manufacturers and bigger companies complained alot.
The point with 64bit is that its inevitable to use it at some point, the sooner you move on the better.
Seeing PCs sold with 8GB ram and Vista Home Premium 32bit Version makes me cry :P
The DRM crap is something MS mostly had to implement. Its as simple as that, not being able to playback HDDVD/BD while the fancy Apple System does it (with the same DRM crap) is just not an option.
Ive used Vista now for quite some time and never ran into any DRM problems(well not using DRM protected content makes that easy I guess).
The "increased" Hardware costs are not noticeable for the customers, every part got cheaper anyway and its not like if you run Linux/BSD/whatever your Hardware misses the parts needed to support the DRM stuff :D
I like the way I can put the "SuperBar" on the left side of desktop instead of at bottom. It only really works if in icon only mode of course, but that's what I'm running (think its good on widescreen). Also like the new pin to taskbar function which doubles as active program tab too.
Happy overall with Windows 7 so far, gonna try some gaming and see if performance and stability is there.
I like the way I can put the "SuperBar" on the left side of desktop instead of at bottom. It only really works if in icon only mode of course, but that's what I'm running (think its good on widescreen). Also like the new pin to taskbar function which doubles as active program tab too.
Happy overall with Windows 7 so far, gonna try some gaming and see if performance and stability is there.
I have to bar to the left too. It's a bit weird in the beginning but it is really nice on a widescreen at 1920x1200.
I have only played WoW on Win7 so far, but it works perfectly.
Uhm, DRM is Apple's baby, what makes you think they won't have it in there?
.aac files, from the itunes store, use apple's own drm, and have, for as long as itunes has been around....
break19
Apple's 'restrictions' aren't remotely close to what MS's are supposed to be / were originally planned to be.
From the headache inducing articles I've read today, MS had much more restrictive ideas in mind, but Apple beat them to the punch with 'secure' formats that are much more organic and open in comparison.
From that anti-vista-drm page, it sounded like the Vista DRM was designed around getting approval to display encrypted cable content. Cable Labs in the US are notorious for being anal-retentive assholes, so it's no surprise that Vista's DRM looks the way it does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree, I don't want to listen to a droll conversation, I'd rather read it. =p
It contains links to their other feature presentations at top. Mostly pictures, not that much text but it's a fast look at some of the stuff in Windows 7. Not all new of course, but updated.
openvpn doesnt work.. or i dunno how xD
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=721036
Ignorance and FUD sure looks good, don't it?
It's not like MS wanted the DRM in there... =/
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWindows 7 should only be 64-bit because even all computers you buy new with Vista are 64-bit, and you aren't going to want to run it on slow 32-bit processors. All Microsoft does with a 32-bit version is hurt the industry, confuse customers and encourage 32-bit laziness among software and hardware vendors. Not good.
Overall I agree with you, but the transition does take time it seems. Many applications don't benefit anything practically from switching to x64. For others even I have noticed speed improvements (like for 7-Zip x64).
What Microsoft needs to do is promote their x64 versions harder, it is Microsoft that can make the change go faster. I hope they do that with Windows 7.
I have seen some rumors that Microsoft now plans Windows 7 as their last 32-bit OS. But that can change. There was the same rumours earlier when Vista was the coming OS.
http://apcmag.com/vista_will_be_the_last_version_of_windows_for_pentium_4_and_core_duo_owners.htm
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAFAIK, most Firefox addons are written with XUL and Javascript, so they should be platform-independent.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumApps really dont need to be 64 bit unless they use alot of memory.
The current "64 bit OS" just means a larger address space.
The CPU instruction set is still 32bit, and therefore the only advantage to 64 bit really is the the size of available memory. 64 bit only begins to pay off after roughly 4GB
Now, current systems 4GB is the norm (and the limit in most cases). Newer machines use triple channel ram so the base is 6GB. Flash forward 1 year. The norm will be 32GB, 64 bit OS'es will be assumed.
The OS is able to use that RAM even if the apps arent built to use it.
as an aside .NET apps run in native 64 bit mode. Java apps can sort-of, but there is no certified 64 bit JVM that is *fully functional* atm. I think the current one doesnt support Java Web Start
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumVoice of reason. I dont know where they get that stuff...DRM has been on my machine for a year and a half via the evil vista, and I have encountered it exatly 0 times.
Anyhow if you dont like it, Apple Inc, -----> thataway
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWell, the guy explains the fundamental changes in the core OS. It was meant for technical folks.
For instance eliminating the spinlock that was a bottleneck for multicpu operation, and subsequent elimination of coarse grained locking of memory pages.
If you think the OS is just fluff changes...(which I did at first)...then you should watch. If you dont watch - then say its all just fluff - then you are misinformed.
Uhm, DRM is Apple's baby, what makes you think they won't have it in there?
.aac files, from the itunes store, use apple's own drm, and have, for as long as itunes has been around....
break19
I thought that was about what I wrote, but yeah.
And as for flashing forward 1 year, wouldn't Windows 7 be Microsoft's current OS? Which means it would be appropriate for them to start pushing for the x64 version more?
Anyway I don't really have any big benefits from using x64 version, but it is somewhat more secure and there are no big problems from using it (except from Creative and X-Fi drivers not being very good).
Here is a small test on 7-zip x86 vs x64:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.opera.com%2Fdj.kure%2Fblog%2F7zip-test-32bit-vs-64bit&sl=cs&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThat was my point.
Ive read about some MS engineer guy saying they already wanted Vista as 64bit only, but they had to trash that quite early because the PC manufacturers and bigger companies complained alot.
The point with 64bit is that its inevitable to use it at some point, the sooner you move on the better.
Seeing PCs sold with 8GB ram and Vista Home Premium 32bit Version makes me cry :P
The DRM crap is something MS mostly had to implement. Its as simple as that, not being able to playback HDDVD/BD while the fancy Apple System does it (with the same DRM crap) is just not an option.
Ive used Vista now for quite some time and never ran into any DRM problems(well not using DRM protected content makes that easy I guess).
The "increased" Hardware costs are not noticeable for the customers, every part got cheaper anyway and its not like if you run Linux/BSD/whatever your Hardware misses the parts needed to support the DRM stuff :D
Happy overall with Windows 7 so far, gonna try some gaming and see if performance and stability is there.
I have to bar to the left too. It's a bit weird in the beginning but it is really nice on a widescreen at 1920x1200.
I have only played WoW on Win7 so far, but it works perfectly.
Apple's 'restrictions' aren't remotely close to what MS's are supposed to be / were originally planned to be.
From the headache inducing articles I've read today, MS had much more restrictive ideas in mind, but Apple beat them to the punch with 'secure' formats that are much more organic and open in comparison.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium