Microsoft to launch Windows XP 64 Bit Edition on Monday

[Martin]

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161501060&tid=5979

About time. It'll be nice to have though, supposedly it'll give a 10% - 20% performance increase.

Anyway, it's a step in the right direction and some food for thought before Longhorn comes out and trounces OSX Nevermind that by this time OS 11'll be out...

[wtd]

Hah! I'll wager users see, if anything, a performance loss. Two reasons:

• 64-bit pointers will basically cut in half the effective cache.
  
• Drivers, drivers, drivers. The mass of Windows drivers out there now are optimized for the 32-bit version of Windows.

It also means Longhorn will never materialize. How many codebases does Microsoft now have to maintain? Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP SP1, Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003 Server, Windows CE, Windows CE.NET, the modified Win2k kernel that the Xbox and its successor use, Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP Tablet Edition, and that's just operating systems. Add Windows XP 64-bit to the mix and that's eleven codebases to develop and maintain, just to make computers turn on.

[Martin]

The Windows XP 64 beta benchmarks showed performance increases with the exception of 3d acceleration, and that was only because they didn't have drivers for it.

Linux nor Apple has had any problems with the transition to 64 bit, so I don't see why Microsoft will. Also, a lot of those codebases overlap. Plus Microsoft is rich as sin, and can always hire more people.

[wtd]

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.

[Universal]

alright longhorn. Im still going to use XP though.

[Martin]

wtd wrote:

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.

And that changes Microsoft how...?

[wtd]

Martin wrote:

wtd wrote:

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.

And that changes Microsoft how...?

It means that there's only so much their money can do for them. It can let them bribe people certainly, but it can't make them a better company.

[Martin]

wtd, Microsoft isn't nearly as bad of a company as you think they are. They've realized the error in their ways, and right now Longhorn is a late attempt to fix that. Regardless of the number of versions of Windows out there, the majority of the development can be done by a small group of people.

They've come to realize that in order to maintain their domination of the computer market they're going to start having to release better software. The .net framework was their first step in the right direction. The problem isn't that Microsoft is incapable of writing good software (look at Visual Studio .net 2003 and Microsoft Office 2003 for example), but rather that they haven't had the need to truely innovate. Right now, with Firefox, Apple and Linux all having breakthroughs in useability over the past year or so, they are finally feeling the need to.

Longhorn the much needed upgrade that they'll be releasing. No, it won't be the be all and end all of operating systems, but I have no doubt that it will be powerful. If the task gets too daunting for them to maintain so many projects, they'll start to drop support for the older ones.

[rizzix]

ack.. they are simply trying to compete with Apple alone.. (Linux is no where near the technologies that Apple provides).. Apple did make windows look like a horrible, cheap OS, and literally it showed how poor it is in quality, stability and mainly implemented technologies.

Longhorn is basically the "windows OS" with similar technologies present in a mac that was released 2-4 years ago.. As of tiger.. apple has taken a huge leap again. It has surpassed the technologies that microsoft "would implement in Longhorn".

Linux is no where to be seen as a competable desktop OS. Sure there is Project Looking Glass by Sun,, but that is not OS specific, it runs on Java & OpenGL technology and was designed to "Run Anywhere".

[Martin]

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

What don't you like about Windows XP rizzix?

[wtd]

Martin wrote:

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

Really? $129USD for OS X. $199USD for Windows XP Pro. Comparisons to XP Home are inapproriate, as Apple doesn't artificially cripple a version of OS X, as Microsoft does with Windows XP.

Martin wrote:

What don't you like about Windows XP rizzix?

Well, I'm not rizzix, but...

Lack of respect for open standards. Microsoft has a huge case of not invented here syndrome that causes them to cook up their own "standards". Windows Media Audio vs. AAC, for instance. The later is not simply an Apple-specific technology, but rather an industry standard file format. Or the Office document formats rather than the Open Document standards OpenOffice 2 implements. DirectX vs. OpenGL.

Lack of a basic level of security. Many apps still need to be run as administrator or will not work at all. This forces users to run with the ability to destroy or sabotage the entire system. The user system Microsoft has in place is good enough (there's no need to change it for "Longhorn"), but they simply don't use it. Even as an administrator, the OS should do what OS X does and prompt a user for the admin password everytime system-level access is needed. No, there should not be a way of turning this off.

As for Microsoft being a bad company, I don't merely speak of their propensity for evil. They simply can't get the job done competently. They have no passion. Oh, sure, individuals within Microsoft may love their work, but he company as a whole has none. It has no goals, other than maintaining its current empire. It has no direction. It's an amoeba trying to move in a thousand different directions at once. These intangible qualities are what Microsoft lacks, and what their greatest competitors (Apple, OSS) have in abundance.

[rizzix]

oooh well i woudn't know really.. i only use it as my gamming box and for programming at times... but for what i've used it for,, its too sluggish.. and that Explorer hogs too much memory... Sometimes i experience CPU lag within my games (i know this since my ping is low, the the game feels laggy now-and-then).. thats just plain stupid.

Besides,, it dosen't have any proper font anti-aliasing, but i think longhorn will fix this.. and its window rendering is soo sluggish, that is at times i see "grey or white (or unrefreshed) areas " now and then within opened windows.. and the explorer does not really resonpond "quickly" either.

it. just. feels. so. bulky. bulky. bulky.

oooh and btw to uninstall an applicaiton at times i need to switch to the admin account and uninstall it.. argh.. in osx i can do it from any account. (sudo)

[Martin]

wtd wrote:

Martin wrote:

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

Really? $129USD for OS X. $199USD for Windows XP Pro. Comparisons to XP Home are inapproriate, as Apple doesn't artificially cripple a version of OS X, as Microsoft does with Windows XP.

That's not a fair point. Macs start at $630. PC's at much less.

[rizzix]

what? are you trying to imply something.. cuz if not.. i dont think you understood his point.

[Martin]

I don't see why OpenGL should be considered the standard over DirectX. People seem to like DirectX more.

And rizzix, I'm saying that Macs are more expensive than PC's. There's no argument there.