Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

359 comments

If it went gold (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119589)

...why are they so afraid of pyrites?

Re:If it went gold (4, Funny)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119601)

Well, they're still trying to iron out all the bugs.

Re:If it went gold (5, Funny)

Everleet (785889) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119698)

Steeling it should be easy, just watch out for coppers.

Re:If it went gold (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119714)

Steeling it should be easy, just watch out for coppers.

That's not what I've been lead to believe, but your statement gives me a silver of hope.

Re:If it went gold (5, Funny)

kclittle (625128) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119733)

I think you guys are trying to be funny, but I'm not sure -- I have such a tin ear for puns.

Re:If it went gold (5, Funny)

Kevin Khatchadourian (844633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119729)

A waste of a silver tongue but it lead to this you guys need a kick in the brass, that's what I zinc at least.

Re:If it went gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119727)

oof

Is there a list of softare ready for it? (4, Interesting)

airjrdn (681898) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119591)

Anyone aware of a list of Windows software (perhaps on MS's site) that'll benefit from it?

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (0)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119600)

Provided you have large amounts of memory... even 'old' 32-bit apps that use want to use lots of memory will benefit (2-3+ gigs that is).

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (4, Informative)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119738)

You can throw 2-3G of memory at 32-bit applications right now using regular XP Professional or 32-bit Windows 2003 Server. With the new 64-bit version of Windows 2003 Server Enterprise you can throw a full TeraByte of physical memory at a single application. Good luck getting that much physical memory in a box right now, but you can get 32G or maybe 64G in a single machine right now if you try real hard (and have a LOT of cash.)

Something tells me Duke Nukem Forever will take full advantage of the 64-bit platform.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (2, Funny)

nsasch (827844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119827)

But the 128-bit platform will definately be released in the next 25 years, well before Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (1)

hhawk (26580) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119625)

Probably mostly Windows itself but that's where it needs the most help.

I assume Adobe has a 64 bit vers. of Photoshop; not sure if they will port it.

It's all fun and games... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119648)

"Anyone aware of a list of Windows software (perhaps on MS's site) that'll benefit from it?"

Solitaire.

My contribution to the list: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119672)

LightWave 3D, by NewTek.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (5, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119760)

With the .NET Framework as "64-bit native", all .NET apps will immediately benefit, and the JIT compiler can take advantage of all of the goodness of x64.

In the binary world, an upcoming version of SQL Server 2005 x86 is promised.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (5, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119785)

I should note that the 64-bit .NET Framework isn't actually out yet: I don't believe it was delivered with the 64-bit XP. That was more of a "future focused" comment about an upcoming variant of the .NET Framework 2.0 that will be 64-bit.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119819)

Well, for one thing, XP-64 isn't really XP. It's essentially a user version of Windows Server 2003. So pretty much everything should get some benefits.

Unfortunately, the Asus K8V SE SATA hard drive driver apparently identifies itself incorrectly or is in someway incompatible. It works fine under XP but XP-64 refuses to load it, saying that it's the wrong version, and XP-64 doesn't recognize the SATA ports out of the box. I have an IDE drive as my primary, so I can boot into XP-64 but I can't see either of my SATA drives when I do.

And no, I won't talk about how I have a copy of a program that just went gold, and no, I haven't seen a crack for the registration requirement yet. Hopefully, one will come out before my 30 days are up.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (2, Interesting)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119820)

Don't programs need to be coded (compiled at least) specifically for x86-64 to use 64bit features?

Is it the season? (4, Interesting)

Hephaestus (70110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119592)

It seems to be the season for OS updates, doesn't it? :-)

Longhorn (5, Interesting)

Daxx_61 (828017) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119595)

What I don't understand is why they didn't just pump the money and development time for 64 into Longhorn. Surely that would have brought down development times, and we could have it sooner?

Re:Longhorn (5, Informative)

caston (711568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119611)

Because 64 bit Linux has been around for a long time now and its making MS look very very outdated. This shows they are scrambleing to keep up now.

Re:Longhorn (-1, Flamebait)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119620)

because, in my true realist self, even if they did that Longhorn wouldn't be out until 2015 at the earliest.

Re:Longhorn (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119826)

That and since they eliminated most of the features that were supposadly going to be very cool..
Avalon,
WinFS,
and that other one that nobody cares about.. ... that the Longhorn OS is essentially going to be the same thing WinXP was to Win2k, which is a slightly updated version of the same operating system.

(notice how all the Avalon/Winfs crap has been 'backported' to WinXP?)

So by working on WinXP, they are working on Longhorn since they are basicly the same.

Cosmeticly they are going to be different, of course, and Longhorn will have more features and updated memory management scemes and such. but it is what it is.

'Blackcomb' was always suppose to be the next 'revolutionary' OS (as in not NT-based like Win2k/WinXP/Longhorn)

It is critical for Longhorn to be released soon.

Since Microsoft switched licensing scemes people are holding off on new contractual orders, while Microsoft keeps offering more and more steep discounts on large new contracts.

IBM even stated that a bank in Europe was offered a contract for 11million dollars from MS to upgrade the office/OS/server licenses, and they went and played the IBM webportal appliation/Linux card between 3-4 million dollars suddenlyh evaporated from the cost.

This June most of the contracts under the old licensing sceme are up and MS needs a new server and desktop OS to go along with a new Office version to rejuvinate intrest.

So basicly people are holding off buying large contracts until they either get bigger discounts, move to Linux servers (Windows desktops still of course), or until something more compelling comes along (longhorn).

And it will. MS will have more sales and Longhorn server/desktop will breath new life into the long term contracts.

Re:Longhorn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119640)

Shh... be quiet, vedy quiet...

Let them take all the time they want on implementing Longhorn. Meanwhile, we'll have X running on top of OpenGL with Cairo, plus Beagle on the desktop ;)

Re:Longhorn (5, Insightful)

netrage_is_bad (734782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119652)

It for the Money. If everyone with a 64bit processor buys an essentially recompiled version of XP, and then buys longhorn when it comes out (whenever that is) they have successfully sold one more product than they would have.

Re:Longhorn (4, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119694)

The XP version if available for free download and if you're talking about bundling XP-64 with pre-built computers, they would most likely come with Windows XP either way. I think it's more about the fear of losing customers rather than trying to trick people to buy two OS'. Besides, if MS where to go another full year without an OS with full 64 bit support, it could be bad for business.
I agree to with you to a certain degree, I just think you're maybe a little too paranoid.

Re:Longhorn (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119815)

Besides, if MS where to go another full year without an OS with full 64 bit support, it could be bad for business.
How? MS is a monopoly, you will like what they give you, when they give it to you. It will not be bad for business because it will help you work faster when it arrives. It will be easier to work with and it will have more features. There is no serious competition or threat to the MS monopoly at the moment. Unless someone develops an easy to use (for joe six pack) OS that can run the current crop of MS apps, then MS has nothing to fear.

Leaving it to long would be a mistake, however, they have released it on schedule now that the intel have released their 64 bit processors. ahhh... the old wintel alliance.

Re:Longhorn (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119769)

It is not a recompiled version of XP. It is a recompiled version of windows 2003 in 64bits. It's called XP but it's different under the hood

Re:Longhorn (0, Offtopic)

Daxx_61 (828017) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119705)

Who the hell modded this flamebait? It was a genuine question! There goes my tenuous hold on my Karma...

Re:Longhorn (0, Flamebait)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119736)

"Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later."

QED

Doesn't matter how much money MS has, money does not create good software. Talented coders and time is what you need.

Re:Longhorn (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119810)

Longhorn (hopefully) has more than just 64-bit support. They are working on all of them. And they don't want their existing version of XP completely 64-bitless until Longhorn came out. 64-bit (x86-64) is catching up fast and if they don't release something fast, people might start switching to other OSes (like Linux). BTW, there was a 64-bit alpha of Longhorn, so it's not like they haven't started work on it at all.

Historian Publishes! (5, Funny)

Spawn of CowboyNeal (860674) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119596)

Ganymede's report on the CRAPPIEST 64-bit operating systems in the World

1: Windows XP X64

that is all.

Re:Historian Publishes! (4, Informative)

BinLadenMyHero (688544) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119721)

Whoever modded this down missed the reference to the excelent Civilization game. It periodicaly lists the top richest/welthiest/militarized/advanced/largest nations of the World.

In fact, I've played only Freeciv [freeciv.org] (and not the original one) for a long time, but I'm pretty sure the Historian Publishes were on the original also.

Re:Historian Publishes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119780)

last time i played freeciv, the canadians were the best...

4/1 (4, Funny)

Primal_theory (859040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119602)

Ok, is it still april fool's day somewhere?

Re:4/1 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119633)

4th of Jan?

I SKULLFUCKED TERRI SCHIAVO POST-AUTOPSY! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119603)

WHAT A HOTTIE!

And ... (4, Funny)

canwaf (240401) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119606)

Bring on the 64 bit Viruses!

Re:And ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119687)

Bring on the 64 bit Viruses!

Considering how secure Windows is, you could probably do it with C64 viruses.

Heh (5, Funny)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119607)

we can now say "finally Windows has caught up with Linux".

Cue the candid laughter everyone.

Re:Heh (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119645)

Damn man, you're a real idiot! Go home...

Re:Heh (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119653)

Really? Microsoft has had 64-bit editions of Windows for years, remember Itanium? Remember Alpha?

Re:Heh (2, Informative)

alman (86957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119666)

NT For Alpha wasn't really 64 bit, it made high use of a 32-64bit emulator.

Re:Heh (2, Informative)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119683)

I think you've got that backwards, NT4 for Alpha was pure 64-bit, and DEC shipped an (32-bit) x86 emulator to help existing applications be able to run.

Re:Heh (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119656)

"finally Windows has caught up with Linux"

Sorry i wasn't informed. When did this outstanding event happen.

</sarcasm>

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119680)

Candid? I think you mean canned.

April Fool ? (3, Funny)

zbeeble (808759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119609)

Yesterday's stories where more convincing.

Re:April Fool ? (2, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119782)

They were? I pity the fool. A good april fools is not only hard to spot but funny as well, I can't say that happened yesterday.

Well... (-1, Troll)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119612)

those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.

If it's anything like we've seen in the past they can keep it.

correction (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119617)

"... those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party."..when running Windows. Solaris x86, linux, etc have seen what the extra addressing brings for a while now.

Is this Longhorn? (-1, Offtopic)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119623)

Ok so this is the much anticipated 'longhorn' 64-bit windows right?

Anyone know any recent games that take advantage of 64-bit addressing?

Re:Is this Longhorn? (4, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119634)

What? This is just a new version of Windows XP, afaik it has nothing to do with Longhorn which is a totally new OS.

Re:Is this Longhorn? (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119650)

ok, thanks for clarifying. Can anyone go into more detail?

I thought longhorn was XP + 64-bit.

Re:Is this Longhorn? (5, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119659)

No, Longhorn is the (code) name for the next version of Windows. XP-64 is just an upgrade, adding the 64 bit addressing possibilities to the Windows XP OS.

Longhorn will not be out until next year at the earliest.

Re:Is this Longhorn? (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119701)

I thought longhorn was XP + 64-bit.

I don't know where all misinformation about Longhorn being aimed for 64-bit processors come from. I keep seeing it everywhere on forums.

Longhorn will be released just like Windows XP; in 32- and 64-bit editions.

Re:Is this Longhorn? (3, Informative)

wpmegee (325603) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119661)

No. This is just Windows XP. Games and other apps will have to be recompiled to take advantage of it - UT2004 has a beta out, don't know of any others available.

Re:Is this Longhorn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119779)

Yep..

The UT2004 version for Linux has had 64bit binaries pretty much since it came out.

People have found you get some performance enhancement with the game.. Especially if you compile optimized versions of the LibSDL libraries and replace the original libraries that came with the game.

But I guess that's useless information to you since your using DirectX and Windows.

Now only a few more years..... (4, Insightful)

Laurance (872708) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119624)

Now only a few more years and we might have 64 bit applications

TERRI SCHIAVO'S LAST BOWEL MOVEMENT WAS YUMMY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119627)

*SLURP!!!!!*

can now? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119641)

that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel

(1) The opteron is a true 64-bit architecture. The em64t (intel thing) is a bit of a bodge (still basically a xeon core, with shades of 32-bit-ness in odd places like memory mapping for devices), but still appears 64 bit.

(2) Linux people have been running x86-64 Linux for _ages_ now. It's a cheap and cheerful server platform without some of the worst cruddiness of x86, and a cheap, extremely cost effective, and generally excellent scientific workstation and compute cluster platform, and is selling like wild here (euro) anyway.

Re:can now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119704)

t's a cheap and cheerful server platform without some of the worst cruddiness of x86...

I keep trying emerge -uD cheerful but it never compiles. I have to use the gloomy default.

Re:can now? (1)

trons (531753) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119807)

If you consider AMD64 to be "true 64 bits", then so is EMT64. They are both just an extension of the 32-bit instruction set and processing units with 64-bit equivalents. Don't think AMD is so moch more innovative than Intel, they just grabbed good ole K7, stuck some goodies on there and called it K8. In other words, they both need a good smacking.

Don't get *too* excited yet... (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119643)

meaning that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.

...Unless you want to run hardware not built into a mainstream motherboard with support included in XP.

...Unless you want to run software using a legacy 16-bit installer (far more common than you might expect, even for programs that don't have a drop of 16-bit code themselves).

XP for x64 has NO 32-bit hardware driver support. Very very few manufacturers have x64 drivers available yet. Thus, don't feel surprised when you literally can't use any of your fancy toys. On the bright side, NVidia does have beta 64-bit drivers available, so you might luck out. Of course, considering the stability of final-release NVidia drivers, do you really want to use a beta?

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

I too look forward to running XP x64 on my Athlon64. But for the moment, the average Joe just doesn't have that as a realistic option. In another six months, perhaps. But not yet.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (2, Insightful)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119657)

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

Ditto, there's still a lot of those out there. I would expect Microsoft to drop atleast a 16-bit VM of some sort - specially for a desktop oriented OS.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119682)

Connectix VirualPC anyone?

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119693)

I don't think they'll bundle it with the OS...

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (2, Interesting)

grennis (344262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119710)

Excuse me but if you are still running a 16-bit application, then you are in a very special situation. And you are keenly aware of that fact. So, you aren't going to be installing XP64, and I don't really see why you would want to in the first place.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119788)

Excuse me but if you are still running a 16-bit application, then you are in a very special situation. And you are keenly aware of that fact.

The application itself, probably. But you apparently missed the point about the installer... If you can't install your 32 or 64 bit program, you can't use it.

It might also suprise you just how many programs do still use 16-bit code. A lot of command-line utils, for one. A lot of low-end games (card and puzzle-type), for another. Now, you might say that you never use the command line or play Chips Challenge, in which case, good for you. But most of us just expect our computers to do what we want them to.


Now, with the 32-bit hardware driver problem, I can understand that. But Microsoft already ran 16-bit apps under emulation since the earliest days of NT (via NTVDM or WOW - If you ever see either of those in yout task manager, you still use 16-bit code for something) - I see absolutely no reason whythey would have discontinued that.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119679)


XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

I say good riddence.

I too look forward to running XP x64 on my Athlon64. But for the moment, the average Joe just doesn't have that as a realistic option. In another six months, perhaps. But not yet.

Your average Joe probably isn't using a 64 bit x86 chip either.

The transition has to start sometime. If not now, when?

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119692)

Ok, so let's bury our heads in the sand, cry "it sucks" and go about our merry way.

I remember this same argument circa 1994/1995 with the OS/2 & Win95 battles, and on the fence were the DOS/Desqview and Win 3.1 users crying foul and raising all sorts of bloody hell.

Instead of bitching about what it doesn't support, why not embrace the technology and be a part of helping it move forward?

Slashdot poster in 2020 " Windows 128Bit sucks because it doesn't support my 32 bit WidgetApp from 2002".

Sheesh!

True, but doesnt it have built in drivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119804)

The OS itself must have some kind of default drivers for thing slike USB keys, networking, popular printers etc. correct?

Anyone tested?

Sure they won't be optimal but they should work. Windows software developers who want to make 64 bit applications would find this release useful even today (without optimal hardware driver support).

Is it worth upgrading? (3, Interesting)

AGTiny (104967) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119651)

I run XP on an AMD64 laptop. Would I gain anything by upgrading to this or not?

Re:Is it worth upgrading? (0, Troll)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119702)

You'd be better installing Ubuntu or even Solaris 10 if you believe in such things.

Re:Is it worth upgrading? (5, Informative)

KidHash (766864) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119703)

It depends, what do you use your laptop for? Unless you're doing scientific work, or playing a game which is 64-bit optimized, then no.

And even if you are doing those things, only if the drivers are available.

Basically, hold off unless you have no choice

Re:Is it worth upgrading? (1)

AGTiny (104967) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119720)

OK yeah, you're probably right. It's just used for web surfing, email, development, etc.

Re:Is it worth upgrading? (1)

BinLadenMyHero (688544) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119742)

Grab a pirated copy and test it.
If you think it's worth, go ahead and pay for your legitimate copy.

Re:Is it worth upgrading? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119744)

Yes, absolutely. I would suggest Gentoo - although Debian's AMD-64 branch might be worth checking out as well.

Wow, another Microsoft public Beta! (2, Insightful)

farrellj (563) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119664)

Wow, another Microsoft public Beta!

Great, the people who sold me the Gigabyte AMD64 motherboard will possibly admit there is a 64 bit operating system now...I had a Gigabyte motherboard that as soon as it got out of the bootloader and went 64 Bit, it would reboot! I should have stuck to ASUS originally.

I swapped out the Gigbyte MB, put in an ASUS...same CPU, Memory, everything and I pass the 64 bit transition, and away I went to load 64Bit Linux! Cool.

ttyl
Farrell

Oh good... (1, Troll)

Seraphnote (655201) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119681)

...now I get to have twice as many problems than I have now with XP 32? :)

Think they improved the wait to display "My Computer" while it has a connection to a remote share, that is either slow or unreachable?

With XP, 512MB ram, and Pentium 4, I get to wait a good minute or two, just to SEE, let alone access, the drives that are still ON or CONNECTED to the machine.

Of course this is the DEFAULT settings, I've not taken the time to research how to "reconfigure" or "tweak" it.

You think they would have optimized such an ancient and basic behavior, OUT OF THE BOX!

Oh wait, it must be one of those "innovative" things...

Re:Oh good... -- No, you are incorrect (5, Funny)

Ada_Rules (260218) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119700)

...now I get to have twice as many problems than I have now with XP 32? :)
This is a common misconception. 64 bit computing does not give you twice as many problems as 32 bit computing. Each time you add a bit you double the problems so in fact you will have 2**32 more problems. The only issue I see is that many of the problems do not really show any increase at 64 bits yet so we will have to wait a while for all of the vendors to port them. I hope this clears things up ;)

The scientific discovery of the decade.... (3, Funny)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119685)

MS Gold can actually rust

Old News (1)

huwnet (792061) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119686)

This was posted on The Inquirer on the 31st March. Slashdot is really behind!

Re:Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119724)

Don't forget that they had to dump a load of shitjokes on us yesterday. Had to get busy, no time for, oh, real stories!

Gold Plating (3, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119689)

Microsoft was well aware of the old saying, "You can't polish a turd," so not to be defeated, they gold-plated it instead.

/me ducks.

Re:Gold Plating (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119749)

Actually, your wrong. You can polish a turd, but a polished turd is still crap.

"Can now see" (3, Informative)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119690)

Or they could have used SUSE and have seen what it does, what, 5 months ago?

Re:"Can now see" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119773)

Make that 11 months ago. Suse 9.0 had 64 bit available.

I tested this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119697)

I tested the betas now and then and submitted a lot of bug reports. The thing is I am happy dual-booting Windows Media Center 2005 and Gentoo AMD64. I don't really find a need to run this for desktop use yet. As everything I use still runs in 32 bit emulated mode. It's just not worth it. Now when Longhorn comes out by that time all processors for high end desktops should already be x86_64. That's great, Microsoft is just using this release as a testing bed for upcoming OSs. I'll stick with Windows MC 2005 and Gentoo for now.

Good luck to them, but I don't feel like paying to beta test future Longhorn kernels. They should be paying me.

The biggest challenge for Windows... (4, Funny)

Illserve (56215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119709)

As processor speed, memory and disk space continue to spiral to ever larger values, Microsoft is really going to be put to task in finding ways to make Windows sluggish.

Their task is made more difficult by advances in compiler design which find an eliminate trivial solutions that simply chew up CPU time by computing huging cosine tables and then overwriting them.

New innovation may come from recent advances in polling network devices unnecessarily and hanging various threads until a reply is received. In the case of pulling a device off the network that Windows Explorer had browsed in the last 15 weeks, a given thread can hang for minutes, chewing up processor time in loops that scan network traffic.

The Windows Development team seems optimistic that they can produce the same crippled user interface on new 64 bit architectures that customers have become familiar with, a valuable marketing strategy in teaching consumers to become suspicious of computers with more responsive interfaces.

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows... (0, Offtopic)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119816)

I think the future on this front lies in XML. All MS has to do is make a simple DTD for binary:

<key value='data'>
<bit value='1' />
</key>
<key value='data'>
<bit value='0' />
</key>

Then dynamically compress that into a zip to save space, then convert the zip file's binary to XML to get more extensible goodness out of it. Hopefully, these steps oughta slow Windows 64 down by a good 75%.

Just what I've been waiting for! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119713)

64 bit BSOD.

More addresses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119717)

Means we can now have bigger, faster, more complex viruses than ever before!

Re:More addresses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119784)

More addresses... who cares.

"So what is the difference between a mercedes and a yugo?" "Oh, the Mercedes has nicer hubcaps"

Microsoft complaining (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119718)

about the bittorrent version in 5... 4... 3...

Lead to gold ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119726)

I didn't know they ever found a way to convert lead to gold ;-)

"extra addressing...." (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119730)

The advantages of the AMD-64 archetecture go far beyond the additional address space. The number of general purpose registers is doubled (and, of course made 64 bits wide). This is far more important than the increased address space and, for most code more important than being 64 versus 32 bit.

Translation: If you've never heard of a register, what this means is that there are twice as many internal storage locations in the processor. moving data between internal registers suffers from no delay, while accesses to memory (ram) is slow and processing cycles can be lost to wait states - basically the processor must pause and wait for the memory access to get done.

This is why most code when recompiled for the new architecture will see an immediate performance improvement. Some code will see gains from the 64 bit width of these registers - but not as much. Virtually no one will see a benefit from being able to use more than 4gb of ram.

Win64 just means one thing... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119739)

Bigger, better, faster, harder... crashes.

8½ years too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12119762)

I already picked up my Nintendo 64 in 1996. Oh, you said X64, not N64....

April Fool's Day Was Yesterday (3, Funny)

Pensacola Tiger (538962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119770)

Just like Microsoft - one day too late.

Coincidence (3, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 9 years ago | (#12119823)

Maybe it's my tinfoil hat speaking, but isn't it strange that Microsoft release a 64bit OS just a few weeks after Intel releases their 64bit x86 cpu http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/ 22/0235246&tid=118&tid=137 [slashdot.org] even though AMD have had their processor out for more than eighteen months?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...