The new Windows OS ?

[neoglow]

Havent really kept track of Windows lately but I know Microsoft are making a new one. But I've gotten a bit confused along the way as regards to versions etc... Could someone explain to me the differences between Longhorn, Vista, XP 64bit, when will the new one be out, compatibility with current programs, can you get the new one in beta version legally? etc etc...

M.

[Cobertizo]

Longhorn was the project name or whatever for Vista. So what was Longhorn is now known as Vista. It is due when they actually manage to release it, which keeps on being put back. I think the current signs are for the second half of 2006. You might be able to get a legal beta if you are a registered developer on MSDN or suchlike, but other than that, no chance. In terms of compatibility, it should be able to run most programs fine. There are always little hiccups, but I think the intention is not to break too much!

XP 64bit is just a version of XP which runs on the new 64bit CPUs. With the standard version I believe that they are just treated in the same way as 32bit chips, so no benefits are evident. Look here for info: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

[vertigo]

I'm not going to touch it until someone proves to me that it's not a massive resource hog, just like every Microsoft OS 'upgrade' has been since 95. Why is it that we have to put up with bull**** like 2Ghz computers that chug under the weight of just the operating system with a few basic applications like internet browser and a music player? It's pathetic and I'm sticking with XP Pro instead of buying into an OS that doesn't yet appear to offer anything apart from new security holes, a whole new array of hidden processes that run in the background when I don't need them and a VRAM-eating GUI.

[Richard.John]

Gates mentioned the fall in his CES keynote so expect it sometime before Crimbo. No doubt to be followed by an advertising blitz telling us why it's the best thing since sliced bread( or is that XP)

[forpey]

I'm not going to touch it until someone proves to me that it's not a massive resource hog, just like every Microsoft OS 'upgrade' has been since 95. Why is it that we have to put up with bull**** like 2Ghz computers that chug under the weight of just the operating system with a few basic applications like internet browser and a music player? It's pathetic and I'm sticking with XP Pro instead of buying into an OS that doesn't yet appear to offer anything apart from new security holes, a whole new array of hidden processes that run in the background when I don't need them and a VRAM-eating GUI.

I've been pleased MS have stuck with XP for so long. Its been a nice stable period for PC's. The longer we have to wait for Vista, the better.

I do wish you could completely erase IE, rather than it been so deeply embedded, though.

[mid]

XP 64-bit is well worth running if you have a 64-bit chip.

Unless you've got one of the few programs that won't run in it (very rare), or have a hardware device for which there are no 64-bit-edition drivers (less rare).

[neoglow]

Thanks for the posts guys, I read somewhere that you do not get gauranteed compatibilty with current programs on XP 64bit. Alot of places seem to be mentioning the AMD 64 FX chips and programs being updated to take advantage, ie, Steam and the Valve games. Though, it dosent mention the ordinary AMD 64 chips, are these not true 64 bits processors?

So when Windows Vista is released, would all places convert over to the new operating system, ie shops like PC World etc. All their Windows come pre installed on PC's, would these come with Vista instead?

M.

[eastyy]

I know far cry had a update for 64bit systems.Think it improved some of the graphics

[Cobertizo]

Vista is the intended successor to XP. So yes, new installations would come with it.

[charlesr]

What advantages would I notice to upgrading to XP64? I dont play PC games. I just run internet, email, and video processing/music processing/picture processing.

I have one of these chips

[mid]

As far as I know that supports the same 64-bit calls as the FX range, so it should be just fine. You won't see a huge amount of advantage (other than the ability to use more than 2Gb of memory) in your program performance without software that is designed for 64-bit, though. But I see there's a Firefox 64-bit build for one.

[Rsdio]

I do wish you could completely erase IE, rather than it been so deeply embedded, though.

You can get rid of it completely using XPLite, but it's hardly ideal that you should need to pay for a seperate program just to get rid of something you don't want.

[kernow]

if all you use it for is 'basic applications' like a media player and internet browser.. why the hell do you need to run windows at all?

there are alternatives.. really.. my os has been on for years with no formats and its faster now than it was when i installed it about 4 years ago

?_?

I'm not going to touch it until someone proves to me that it's not a massive resource hog, just like every Microsoft OS 'upgrade' has been since 95. Why is it that we have to put up with bull**** like 2Ghz computers that chug under the weight of just the operating system with a few basic applications like internet browser and a music player? It's pathetic and I'm sticking with XP Pro instead of buying into an OS that doesn't yet appear to offer anything apart from new security holes, a whole new array of hidden processes that run in the background when I don't need them and a VRAM-eating GUI.

[neoglow]

if all you use it for is 'basic applications' like a media player and internet browser.. why the hell do you need to run windows at all?

I dont understand this bit kernow, how can you run a PC with media player and internet explorer without Windows? I'm confused, are you saying you can run a PC with Windows Operating System???

M.

[marcus]

Getting rid of IE is a bad idea imo, you cant use windows update without it. Had a brief play with Vista a while back, seemed to function largely like XP, might give the newer Beta a try if I can be bothered.