Vista already being replaced?
- Thread starter plumber4578
- Start date
- Status
Because not every system can support 64 bit. Mine system can not support 64 Bit so why should i be forced to upgrade to 64 Bit to get the new OS? That is a double edged sword. Just cause most newer systems are 64 Compatible doesnt mean that 1. Developers are making software for it or 2. That developers are making drivers for it.
Dont blame M$. They dont make all the software and drivers. All the stuff M$ makes works on both 32 and 64 Bit. Blame Creative and them for not making their stuff work.
That is a totally different area you are talkiing. Nothing is suppored forever. Not even Linux is. So yeah you will be "forced" to upgrade sooner or later. But that is the nature of PC's.
Just because they dont support it anymore doesnt mean you cant run it. I have Windows 1.0 in a Virtual Machine running. Do you think they support that still? No. But i run it.
Plus you have to take into consideration the fact that most machines that are 20 years old can not handle todays applicaitons, tasks, hardware, and pretty much everything that the stuff today has to offer.
That is your choice to stay on machines that are that old. That is your choice to fell like you are being forced to upgrade. But show me 1 software applicaiton that still supports the software they wrote 20 years ago without telling you that you should upgrade to the newest version. No one does it. Sorry but you say you are being forced. I am saying that you are jsut another victim of the constantly changing market. No one expeced PC's to get as big as fast as they did. When you can buy a machine today and be obsolete tomorrow. There is no choice but to upgrade. that is the nature of this market. That is not Microsoft forcing anything on anyone. They didnt stay in business for almost 30 years by being behind in business.
aaronkupen
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,848
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
All I tend to hear in this forum is about how Vista forces people to upgrade their systems and yadda yadda yadda. Once Windows 7 comes out, anyone who is running that OS will have a 64 bit cpu (I'd say well over 90% of people who use Vista now will have a 64 bit capable processor because most 32 bit processors are barely capable of running Vista well). Developers aren't making software for it and Developers aren't concentrating on drivers BECAUSE 32 bit OS's are out. They would obviously concentrate on the common denominator -- that's why Microsoft needs to force the move to 64 bit Operating Systems.
You won't need to upgrade to Windows 7 to continue your computing experience. When Windows 7 comes out, XP will still be a suitable option for anyone's needs. Windows 7 should be the first leap into pure 64 bit operating systems. If Microsoft keeps doing both, It will be ages before 64 bit gets proper support.
No i do not agree. Why would everyone or at least 90% of people have a 64 Bit CPU? I dont plan on upgrading before then. Why should i my system is more than functional right now. It runs Vista as smooth as it does XP. So that would not entail me to get a 64 Bit CPU by the time Windows 7 comes out.
So that would force me to upgrade. It isnt just becaude 32 Bit OS;s are out that they are developing for it. Becuase it is easier. It has been teh standard for over 20 years now and it is hard to jsut up and leave it and code for a whole new platform. Granted Vista 64 Bit is almost exactly like Vista 32 Bit which should make hte transition easier. But your claims of people having 64 bit CPU's now or by them are radical.
I will upgrade as i like to stay ahead of the curve and learn things when i have the chance. I started using Vista as a beta and i got around the learning curve of it early that is why i was able to adapt it early and use it often. I will do the same with Windows 7. I will get the Beta and use it and be one of the first to use it after it goes final as well.
Your focus is not where it should be. Microsoft has done everything they can to get 64 Bit mainstream. It is not them. Even removing the 32 Bit Versions would not mean 64 Bit would become standard or popular. That would cause a outcry from the public and you would see not only Vendor calling for 32 Bit but Busniess and People as well.
What you dont seem to realize is that Businesses drive the sale of Vista more than any home user. Businesses are still running 98SE on some machines and 2000 on others. They do not spend that much to upgrade their machines cause for them that would cost MILLIONS. So it is still very profitable for Microsoft to release 32 Bit versions. Just like it is profitable for Vendors to make stuff for 32 Bit. Only when they can show that 64 Bit would make them more of a profit will they switch. Till you can get EVERY BUSINESS on 64 BIt that wont happen. Good luck making that happen.
So that would force me to upgrade. It isnt just becaude 32 Bit OS;s are out that they are developing for it. Becuase it is easier. It has been teh standard for over 20 years now and it is hard to jsut up and leave it and code for a whole new platform. Granted Vista 64 Bit is almost exactly like Vista 32 Bit which should make hte transition easier. But your claims of people having 64 bit CPU's now or by them are radical.
I will upgrade as i like to stay ahead of the curve and learn things when i have the chance. I started using Vista as a beta and i got around the learning curve of it early that is why i was able to adapt it early and use it often. I will do the same with Windows 7. I will get the Beta and use it and be one of the first to use it after it goes final as well.
Your focus is not where it should be. Microsoft has done everything they can to get 64 Bit mainstream. It is not them. Even removing the 32 Bit Versions would not mean 64 Bit would become standard or popular. That would cause a outcry from the public and you would see not only Vendor calling for 32 Bit but Busniess and People as well.
What you dont seem to realize is that Businesses drive the sale of Vista more than any home user. Businesses are still running 98SE on some machines and 2000 on others. They do not spend that much to upgrade their machines cause for them that would cost MILLIONS. So it is still very profitable for Microsoft to release 32 Bit versions. Just like it is profitable for Vendors to make stuff for 32 Bit. Only when they can show that 64 Bit would make them more of a profit will they switch. Till you can get EVERY BUSINESS on 64 BIt that wont happen. Good luck making that happen.
Mak's right. The vast majority of computers in use are 32 bit systems. 64 bit CPUs have not been out for very long in the overall scheme of things. As Mak said, businesses are still running old systems and OS's to save money.
Being in the enthusist elite blinds us to the masses that are not up where we are in terms of performance. I know at work our newest computers are P4 3.0GHz Dells. They are not HT capable, not dual core, not anything. they are running Windows 2000 and using Office 2000. And these are brand new boxes.
Everyday users are pretty much in the same boat. They are using the same computer they originally bought way back when, unless they went out and bought a new one because the old one got so stuffed with adware and viruses to not run anymore. Even then, they bought the cheapest one that would do what they needed it do to... which did not include a 64 bit CPU. It took Intel a while to finally get 64 bit CPUs out the door, meaning the channel was stuffed with non-64 CPUs for a long, long time. And it will be a long, long time before these comps dwindle away.
I would love to see 64 bit OS's become mainstream. But, until everyone gets on board with drivers and such, it is a pipe dream.
Being in the enthusist elite blinds us to the masses that are not up where we are in terms of performance. I know at work our newest computers are P4 3.0GHz Dells. They are not HT capable, not dual core, not anything. they are running Windows 2000 and using Office 2000. And these are brand new boxes.
Everyday users are pretty much in the same boat. They are using the same computer they originally bought way back when, unless they went out and bought a new one because the old one got so stuffed with adware and viruses to not run anymore. Even then, they bought the cheapest one that would do what they needed it do to... which did not include a 64 bit CPU. It took Intel a while to finally get 64 bit CPUs out the door, meaning the channel was stuffed with non-64 CPUs for a long, long time. And it will be a long, long time before these comps dwindle away.
I would love to see 64 bit OS's become mainstream. But, until everyone gets on board with drivers and such, it is a pipe dream.
aaronkupen
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,848
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
I don't think you guy's are understanding. Is vista going to be used on those PC's that the businesses currently have windows 98 on now? No. Those computers aren't powerful enough, Is Windows 7 going to be put on that Pentium 4 system you are referring to either? No. Those systems are either not powerful enough, or hardly powerful enough to even run those operating systems. By the time Windows 7 is out, the only systems that will be able to run the OS well will have 64 bit support as do the vast majority of PCs out now that use Vista. Who is going to put vista on a first edition prescott or northwood Pentium 4? Those people will be sticking to the OS's that will benefit them.
forrestcupp
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 693
Flash 9 has been available since Ubuntu Edgy days and I think even Dapper. You just have to install the Flash player via Synaptic or apt-get. It works like a charm. Or you could install the latest version of Linux Mint distro, which is based on Ubuntu Gutsy and it comes with Flash and all of the codecs and stuff pre-installed. Mint looks pretty nice, too.
On Topic:
I agree that MS should forsake 32-bit with Windows 7. "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." MS's ongoing support for 32-bit is the only reason that the hardware and software makers aren't getting off their butts and making good 64-bit drivers and software. If MS dropped 32-bit, they would have to put more work into 64-bit. If your hardware won't support 64-bit you would have to stick with whatever OS you can run. People with hardware that can run Windows 98 shouldn't expect to be able to run Vista, should they? Maybe people with hardware that is 32-bit only shouldn't expect to be able to run Windows 7.
aaronkupen
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,848
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
Exactly, those people wouldn't be able to run vista that well either. And with Microsoft's ongoing support of XP... users will have a fully functional OS for some time.
This is utter garbage. I run a P4 3.4GHz with HT right now with Vista Ultimate. It runs just fine. I will run Windows 7 on this machine as well. So your statement that the hardware will not run it is totally bogus. I have seen Vista running on a P3 system with 3GB of DDR RAM. It ran fine. So where are you getting that it wont work with Windows 7? You claims are so far fetched and unresearched it is starting to get funny.
My system is more than powerful enough to run Vista. It was over powerful for XP. So it will be powerful enough for Windows 7. No the Vast majority will still NOT be 64 Bit as my system proves you can use a P4 to run Vista just fine. It is NOT 64 BIt and i have no need to upgrade.
I have put Vista on a Prescott. Just to prove it here is my shot of CPUz.
There is my proof that Vista is on a Prescott and running jsut fine. Would you still like to claim all these radical things that are so wrong? I will even post a shot of my System Properties with the CPUz screen over it if you wish. Jsut to even further prove to you that i have Vista running on a Prescott.
You think every person that runs a PC is a enthusist. Which is wrong. The average user has no clue if htey have a 64 Bit CPU or how to even tell. They buy a now OS without knowing that they can isntall 64 Bit and jsut buy 32 Bit cause it is the most common and the easiest to upgrade to. Do you think every person here who has upgraded runs a 64 Bit CPU? Do you think they all know?
I have made my point about the businesses. They drive the sales more than a home user does. I have now made my point about home users. PC enthusists are the only ones who are hard core onto 64 Bit right now. PC Enthusists are less in number than the home users who buy Vista which is significantly less than the amount of businesses that have bought Vista.
I do seriously hope that MS goes with a modular design with 7. That way, you only install what you need for what you do. And if it will run on older hardware while allowing the end user to configure what it's memory footprint will be, businesses might actually look at using it.
Win2000 is the business flavor of choice due to its stability and the soid foundation of drivers and support for it. Even after MS drops its support for Win2000, businesses will continue to use it. why shoot the cow if it still gives milk?
Win2000 is the business flavor of choice due to its stability and the soid foundation of drivers and support for it. Even after MS drops its support for Win2000, businesses will continue to use it. why shoot the cow if it still gives milk?
- Status
