What is Digg?68 Comments
- jaytek13, on 10/09/2009, -1/+32What about 64-bit applications is more like it. They can't really be serious about this when already 80% of my apps still have to run in 32 bit emulation.
- anonymousmedic, on 10/09/2009, -3/+34Bah. Don't they know that 2010 will be the year of the linux desktop?!
Just like 2009 was. And 2008. And 2007. And 2006. And 2005. And...awww ***** it. - FredFredrickson, on 10/08/2009, -2/+28Yeah, and Toyota shouldn't develop a new line of cars until they've perfected the old one! And Sony shouldn't work on PlayStation 4 until PlayStation 3 is perfect! And Apple should halt production on the next version of Mac OS until OS X is perfect!
Do you see how retarded that idea is yet? - inactive, on 10/08/2009, -4/+29OK, but where is the 128 bit hardware?
- subliminali, on 10/09/2009, -2/+27I hear windows 10 will be all holograms.
- elijahyossie, on 10/08/2009, -3/+18Couldn't agree more - I've had Windows 7 up to my neck!
- inactive, on 10/08/2009, -3/+16I am very happy with Win 7
- Wargasmic, on 10/09/2009, -0/+12That made me laugh. Year of the linux desktop lol, classic.
- HmYaUhNo, on 10/09/2009, -2/+12I hear windows 11 will end the world in 2012.
- richi, on 10/08/2009, -2/+10FTA, Intel is working on IA128, so watch this space...
- Schmich, on 10/09/2009, -2/+10Pffff go 256, at least!
- Philbert, on 10/09/2009, -1/+9To be fair most programs don't need 64 bit. Being a 3D artist most of the programs I use are 64 bit, but I don't see CuteFTP or Mozilla Thunderbird needing 64 bit any time soon.
- MacParrot, on 10/08/2009, -1/+8Before we start talking about Windows 8 (or 9), how about we wait until 7 comes out? Microsoft needs to put all the resources needed for any Win 7 bug fixes once released before they start talking about what's next. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on it, just don't talk about it too much until 7 is as good as it can be. Hopefully this will end all the complaining about Vista (which I really didn't have many problems with).
- FredFredrickson, on 10/08/2009, -2/+9Well yeah, I agree - if they could have avoided putting out Vista and had gone with Win 7 from the get-go, we'd all probably be better off.
But I don't see the point in halting production of all other things just to perfect one product. No company can do that, and even from my list above, none of those companies (Toyota, Sony, or Apple) gets everything right with every product they make.
The PS3 and Apple TV should be good examples of that.
I don't think MS deliberately tried to screw people over with Vista. And there's nothing wrong with going back and fixing problems later if enough people complain. - Wargasmic, on 10/09/2009, -0/+7That might have been true 3 or 4 years ago. Wake up and smell the 64bit!
- WeAreDejaVoodoo, on 10/09/2009, -1/+7It won't, mainly for the reason that the sucessor for Win7 should be released faster than the 5 year gap of XP to Vista.
- Wargasmic, on 10/09/2009, -0/+6128bit is for noobs.
- AngelBunny, on 10/09/2009, -3/+9This is about 128bit file systems like ZFS and nothing more. *yawns* nothing new here..
- nutsackninja, on 10/09/2009, -1/+6I am disappointed that Microsoft made Windows 7 available in 32bit and 64bit versions. This means vendors are going to have to make both 32bit and 64 bit drivers instead of just concentrating on 1 set of drivers.
There shouldn't be any talk about 128bit until they can get 64bit out the door properly. - almondfilter3, on 10/09/2009, -0/+5128 bit? Don't expect applications to run on that in a while...
- Myztry, on 10/09/2009, -0/+5You just have to use the right repository... Then you can access all bit sizes and architectures...
- ipodman715, on 10/09/2009, -0/+5bring on the quantum computers!
- astrodemoniac, on 10/09/2009, -0/+4Because 64bit has caught on so quickly...
- Wargasmic, on 10/09/2009, -2/+6Oh, and they own about 95% of the business market. Yeah, they are failing! Sky falling! Etc!
- JQP123, on 10/09/2009, -2/+6I agree, from an application standpoint, there isn't much real *need* for 64 bit.
Virtually everyone recognized the need to move from 16 bit to 32 bit. A similar universal appeal for moving to 64 bit and beyond does not exist. To make the move worthwhile, software developers will have to find creative new ways to consume memory. - ShingoEX, on 10/09/2009, -0/+3"Be mindful of the future...but not at the expense of the moment"
- jbird123, on 10/09/2009, -0/+3yeah like 2012
- chadr6, on 10/09/2009, -0/+3There are barely any 64-bit applications out there. I doubt whether companies will be making 128-bit applications any time soon.
- vsujohn2, on 10/09/2009, -2/+5I'm waiting for Windows 9001.
- Princeamor, on 10/09/2009, -1/+4Forget all this crap, let's bring optical technology into the motherboard and cpu's.
- Spanq, on 10/09/2009, -0/+2Are you kidding me? How many times have you used Windows Update and NOT been asked to restart?
- Myztry, on 10/09/2009, -3/+5That's it. I'm skipping vista and going straight to Windows 8 :)
- gkiltz, on 10/09/2009, -0/+2As difficult as implementation of 64 bit architecture proved to be, and as long as it took, in an industry that is not very good at learning from it's mistakes, I shudder to think!
- spectre_25gt, on 10/09/2009, -0/+2That's a pretty broad statement. Care to be more specific?
- andrejhoward, on 10/09/2009, -0/+2Agreed alot of the 32 bit software is adequate for what we are doing NOW... I stress now because as the web and email change so too will the requirements and the pros for demanding 64 bit.
@philbert Mozilla Thunderbrid makes a 64 bit client ... I use it :) - WeAreDejaVoodoo, on 10/09/2009, -2/+47 was good because Microsoft had the extra time to perfect it. I remember MS were under immense pressure to release some sort of OS after the Longhorn code was started over, what, twice? The delays led to Vista not being as polished and complete as it could have been.
- Suricou, on 10/10/2009, -0/+2Can only run natively. It's possible to emulate any width on any width, but doing so comes with a great loss of performance - a fraction of native speed. Useful for running DOS games, at least.
- the8thbit, on 10/09/2009, -1/+3What does this have to do with Windows?
- sgfreak784, on 10/09/2009, -0/+1smoke and mirrors? sounds about like the other versions of Windows.
(lifelong Windows user, not an Apple fanboy) - Schmich, on 10/09/2009, -2/+3No, it's not the same article. This article actually has the comments from that submission. If they were same it would have been like dividing by 0 in 128bit.
- gaymathman, on 10/11/2009, -0/+1Considering that Intel hasn't successfully designed a new architecture in over thirty years, I doubt that they're going to attempt an engineering marvel on the level of Cell. Its 32 128-bit vector registers, 64 general purpose registers, and massive bandwidth cause it to outperform most of Intel's chips, despite the fact that it's three years old and that the Intel chips have much higher theoretical performance. All of Cell's bandwidth and registers allow it to actually achieve most of its performance. Getting ***** to actually run on it is an absolute bitch, but the performance is well worth it.
- HPMNick, on 10/12/2009, -0/+1Actually, from what I've seen, the Cell is really very horrible at your general purpose work... Basically, all its good for is the normally laborious floating point math. This covers audio/video encoding, ray tracing, scientific simulations, etc.
The problem with Intel processors is that while very good at doing 90% of your average calculations, its floating point performance in genuinely lackluster. The cell is a lot like a bunch of vector processors set up in an array, which makes it very well suited for what the Intel processors can not do.
Intel HAS planned to make architectural improvements and dedicate more die space to what normally consists of the FPU. They have stated that they are indeed going to add a series of small specialized vector processors, not all unlike the SPE's of the cell. Last I saw though, this was on the roadmap for 2013. - JQP123, on 10/10/2009, -0/+1"Just to clarify, there is a hardware-driven need to expand to 64-bit systems in that 32-bit computer systems can only address up to 16GB of RAM. If we're going to want more RAM than that sometime in the future, the expansion to 64-bit is inevitable,"
A 32 bit address space can only access 4GB of RAM (2^32).
And yes, at "sometime in the future", I'm sure we'll probably want more RAM than that ... but not today. Most apps *today* don't even come close to using this much RAM; hence, there is not a whole lot of incentive for making a move *today*. - gaymathman, on 10/11/2009, -0/+1You have to do that with every OS. I have 7, and I never notice the restarts because they happen at night when my computer's just running BOINC. Linux needs to be restarted occasionally as well.
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2009, -0/+1Remember Longhorn?
Don't try to predict bleeding edge features for unreleased versions of MS-Windows. - the8thbit, on 10/09/2009, -1/+2I think the PS3 is pretty cool system, eh has more exclusives than the 360 and doesn't afraid of RROD.
:/ - NomadThree, on 10/09/2009, -1/+2@sivyr your point is valid, however the limit for a 32-bit system is 4GB of memory not 16GB. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296, so that's the ability to provide a unique address for roughly 4.3 billion unique addresses, each address refers to one byte of data. So that's 4.3billion bytes of data or 4GB. The .3 goes away due to the convention that a kilobyte is not 1000 bytes but actually 1024 bytes.
- Myztry, on 10/09/2009, -1/+2Service Pack 1 is going to rule, and the commercial Beta is going to be downplayed as always...
- Flagg3, on 10/09/2009, -2/+3Whatever the new OS will be, I will be shocked if Microsoft at some point doesn't include, and then announce the removal of WinFS, which has always been a part of the 'next' generation OS in some shape or form going back to the early 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is