Jump to content
witcher01

Windows 8 Information ?

Recommended Posts

Only info I know is that windows 8 will not have a 32 bit version its planned to be 64 and 128 bit versions which is what Windows 7 was meant to be but they decided to change to 32 and 64 for one last time. Seems they wanna force all places to make all programs 64 bit versions and get 128 bit stuff started which I think is good cause with noone forcing this on us we'd be here in 100 years still having everything made in 32 bit to cater to the majority of PC's which seriously holds back progress.

128 bits of lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are currently no mainstream general-purpose processors built to operate on 128-bit integers or addresses, though a number of processors do operate on 128-bit data. The IBM System/370 could be considered the first rudimentary 128-bit computer as it used 128-bit floating point registers. Most modern CPUs feature SIMD instruction sets (SSE, AltiVec etc.) where 128-bit vector registers are used to store several smaller numbers, such as four 32-bit floating-point numbers, and a single instruction can operate on all these values in parallel. However, these processors do not operate on individual numbers that are 128 binary digits in length, only their registers have the size of 128-bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit

 

I have no idea what 128-bit CPU architecture Microsoft is planning to support, given there are absolutely zero CPUs in the market today that support it. Given Microsoft's traditional speed on these matters, you can bet there will be open source OSes fully running on those things before beta-grade ports of Windows OSes become available for 128-bit CPUs.

 

In any case, what's the benefit? Cryptography would be the one area which might benefit, but dedicated hardware would do the job faster than any CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only info I know is that windows 8 will not have a 32 bit version its planned to be 64 and 128 bit versions which is what Windows 7 was meant to be but they decided to change to 32 and 64 for one last time. Seems they wanna force all places to make all programs 64 bit versions and get 128 bit stuff started which I think is good cause with noone forcing this on us we'd be here in 100 years still having everything made in 32 bit to cater to the majority of PC's which seriously holds back progress.

Got a source for that? :)

 

Source?

 

Rumours... dirty rumours... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only info I know is that windows 8 will not have a 32 bit version its planned to be 64 and 128 bit versions which is what Windows 7 was meant to be but they decided to change to 32 and 64 for one last time. Seems they wanna force all places to make all programs 64 bit versions and get 128 bit stuff started which I think is good cause with noone forcing this on us we'd be here in 100 years still having everything made in 32 bit to cater to the majority of PC's which seriously holds back progress.

Got a source for that? :)

 

His uncle's best friend's cousin's wife's sister's hairdresser's old army buddy told him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, according to The Register, there's rumours of Windows employing the Ribbon interface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank GOD I don't use it anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, according to The Register, there's rumours of Windows employing the Ribbon interface.

Yeah that sucks. It's fine for Office, but it's just too bulky and fragmented for explorer. Not that I really care, I'm slowly moving across to Linux, but I do like to game occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Well, that's my ideal interface, has a damn sight more power, but I recognise it's not the interface for everyone.

 

There is a balance between discoverability and power. "Ease of use" is not necessarily at either point, it's user dependent and can sit anywhere on that continuum of GUIs with buttons/menus/toolbars for everything (Ribbon interface would be an example), and having to think like a programmer (command line shell prompts). And personally, I'd be happy with Windows if its command prompt was half decent. It SUCKS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And personally, I'd be happy with Windows if its command prompt was half decent. It SUCKS!

When's the last time you used it more than incidentally?

 

It's actually quite good these days. The batch language is light years ahead of where it was in MS-DOS, it supports conditional blocks, for loops, late expansion of variables, unixy use of backticks, and all sorts of other cool stuff.

 

PowerShell is available as an addon to Windows XP and Vista (included in Windows 7 and Server 2008), and is more powerful again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The batch language is improving, yes... but line editing is only marginally better than some primitive shells in 30-year old Unix dialects... and it unfortunately understands nothing of Borne shell, which is bad news as it basically forces you to install a separate shell to get the job done, or duplicate your efforts writing the same scripts in two languages. (Pity autoconf can't generate batch scripts.)

 

I'm facing this now. Writing an application to build on both Windows (using VisualStudio), Linux, and MacOS X. The latter two are easy since they both use gcc, and there's just a few little Apple-inspired quirks to worry about. Windows on the other hand; I'm having the mind-bending exercise of figuring out how to write a Makefile and wrapper scripts that will take Unix-style paths generated by a Cygwin/MSYS environment, and translate that to the world of DOS for cl.exe's tiny little mind.

 

Worse though, is the appauling terminal emulator one has to deal with. You'd think that after all this time, they'd have made some provision for a cmd.exe-compatible terminal that can do greater than 80 columns, has a decent scrollback buffer and understands something of ECMA48 escape codes. Don't mind if it's some command switch you need to give it to enable the feature. I know MSYS had a hacked-up RXVT which I quite liked. It was half way there to being decent.

 

It unfortunately did not work with old DOS applications, since stdin and stdout was handled by reading from the keyboard buffer and writing to CGA memory. Microsoft could do well to improve this, there are lots of cases where being able to say, start up an equivalent of GNU screen, run a command-line script that will take some time, then detach the session and let it putt along nicely in the background, would be a godsend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse though, is the appauling terminal emulator one has to deal with. You'd think that after all this time, they'd have made some provision for a cmd.exe-compatible terminal that can do greater than 80 columns, has a decent scrollback buffer and understands something of ECMA48 escape codes.

Erm... I might be being really thick here, and I claim sleep deprivation for that, but "What?" I have my dos-window defaulting to 120-characters wide by 40-odd lines, and you can set your scroll-back buffer yourself (upto 999 lines, I think). Can't speak for the escape codes thing, because I have no idea what that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The batch language is improving, yes... but line editing is only marginally better than some primitive shells in 30-year old Unix dialects...

What do you mean by line editing? Using the arrow keys to make quick corrections to your input, and scroll through command history, stuff like that?

 

and it unfortunately understands nothing of Borne shell, which is bad news as it basically forces you to install a separate shell to get the job done, or duplicate your efforts writing the same scripts in two languages. (Pity autoconf can't generate batch scripts.)

Of course it doesn't understand borne. It's not borne, it's not supposed to be.

 

Worse though, is the appauling terminal emulator one has to deal with. You'd think that after all this time, they'd have made some provision for a cmd.exe-compatible terminal that can do greater than 80 columns, has a decent scrollback buffer and understands something of ECMA48 escape codes. Don't mind if it's some command switch you need to give it to enable the feature. I know MSYS had a hacked-up RXVT which I quite liked. It was half way there to being decent.

The CMD window can be arbitrarily large, and has had this capability since NT 3.1.

 

It unfortunately did not work with old DOS applications, since stdin and stdout was handled by reading from the keyboard buffer and writing to CGA memory.

True of MS-DOS, not of any NT: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documen...n.mspx?mfr=true

 

Microsoft could do well to improve this, there are lots of cases where being able to say, start up an equivalent of GNU screen, run a command-line script that will take some time, then detach the session and let it putt along nicely in the background, would be a godsend.

The Windows way to do this is to simply open another command prompt window.

 

It's totally understandable and natural to be out of your element in another operating environment. The FOSS way vs the Windows way is no more a better vs worse argument than left hand drive vs right hand drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just find the terminal a pain to use in Windows. Command history only remember the session you are in now, ^W doesn't work...etc.

 

As for doing wider terminals, you certainly can't resize the terminal on the fly, and in this age of tabbed interfaces, must we really have 20 separate dialogues open?

 

I wonder what Windows would look like if Microsoft used their own Xenix OS instead of buying QDOS for IBM PCs all those years ago. Microsoft have been dumbing down Windows with each release, but thankfully, they've made it so that you can enable the "classic" UI for those who prefer it. You still can't do things like customise the keybindings. MacOS X isn't quite as flexible as I'd like, but it's still better than Windows on that point.

 

Windows is slowly evolving into a one-size-fits-all desktop, which is not how OSes should be. One size does not fit all. You cannot tighten a screw with a hammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possibly true piece of info (I dunno if it is :P)

 

"Rumor: Windows 8 Set for September Reveal

 

The Windows 8 talk has really been heating up over the last week or so and today brings speculation about a possible release date for the OS.

 

It’s been 18 months since Microsoft’s Windows 7 hit retailers’ shelves and if the latest reports are to be believed, the beta of the next version Windows will arrive in six month’s time. Microsoft has announced that the company’s annual Professional Developers Conference will kick off September 13 and run through to September 16.

 

Considering Microsoft debuted the first public beta of Windows 7 at PDC 2008, Business Insider is leading the way in speculating that PDC 2011 will include a demo of the first public beta of Windows 8.

 

If we’re to follow Microsoft’s Windows 7 release schedule, the PDC 2011 public beta of Windows 8 will give way to a fall 2012 shipping date for the completed version of the operating system."

 

Tom's Hardware

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://windows8center.com/windows8-leaks/w...download-leaks/

^

It’s about time. The first Windows 8 build has leaked according to an anonymous tipster to BetaArchive. The full build string for the leaked build is 6.1.7850.0.winmain_win8m1.100922-1508_x86fre_client-enterprise_en-us.iso. The build has been verified as genuine.

Shiny.

 

There's an RSS feed too, if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full build string for the leaked build is 6.1.7850

So... pretty much Vista SP5. Windows 2000 was v5, XP was v5.1, Vista was v6, 7 was v6.1.

 

My Win 7 SP1 is version 6.1.7601.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Ewwie, definitely, no.

I understand that you perhaps don't know this because you like to have as little to do with Windows as possible, but you can minimise a ribbon, and it takes up no more room than showing window menus under most operating systems I've used. Which is a little peculiar in itself, what with Windows 7 standardising on hiding window menus unless you press a hotkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just find the terminal a pain to use in Windows. Command history only remember the session you are in now, ^W doesn't work...etc.

 

As for doing wider terminals, you certainly can't resize the terminal on the fly, and in this age of tabbed interfaces, must we really have 20 separate dialogues open?

 

I wonder what Windows would look like if Microsoft used their own Xenix OS instead of buying QDOS for IBM PCs all those years ago. Microsoft have been dumbing down Windows with each release, but thankfully, they've made it so that you can enable the "classic" UI for those who prefer it. You still can't do things like customise the keybindings. MacOS X isn't quite as flexible as I'd like, but it's still better than Windows on that point.

 

Windows is slowly evolving into a one-size-fits-all desktop, which is not how OSes should be. One size does not fit all. You cannot tighten a screw with a hammer.

Sounds like you want it to be more one-size-fits-all. It isn't aimed at you, yet you complain that it should cater for the infinitesimally small user group in which you reside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows is slowly evolving into a one-size-fits-all desktop, which is not how OSes should be. One size does not fit all. You cannot tighten a screw with a hammer.

Sounds like you want it to be more one-size-fits-all. It isn't aimed at you, yet you complain that it should cater for the infinitesimally small user group in which you reside.

 

Hang on, one of my gripes is that you can't alter keybindings ... i.e. rather than ALT+F4 to close a window, being able to change it to say, Win+Shift+C (which is what I use on KDE). That is "expecting it to be one-size-fits-all"? Another gripe was that there was no concept of pseudo TTYs like in Unix operating systems, so that you can start command line tasks remotely via SSH or use some tool such as GNU screen to "background" them, and perhaps have a choice in terminal application rather than the crappy Windows one. That's expecting "one size fits all"?

 

Rather than having the OS be adaptable to the user, it seems Microsoft wants the user to adapt to the OS. While I agree there's a certain amount of horses for courses... you wouldn't be wise running Windows Phone 7 on a web server, nor would Windows 2008 be a great choice on a mobile phone. From the user's perspective, the interface should be adaptable to how the user wishes to interact with their system. And if they want a particular combination of keys to do a given task, there should be an option to let them configure that. If they want multiple virtual desktops (spaces, if you're a MacOS X user), they should be able to configure that.

 

As I say, Linux has had this for a very long time.

MacOS X at least meets me half way.

Microsoft Windows doesn't even try.

 

And now this

 

Windows 8 to Make USB Portable Workspace

 

There are quite a few news articles already on Windows 8, surprises me somewhat

Sounds an interesting concept. I wonder what gave them that idea? ;-)

 

I'll bet they pile on the restrictions on what you can do with that portable workspace. That, and I wonder how they handle drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's an offline implementation of roaming profiles, that'd certainly be interesting.

 

That, and I wonder how they handle drivers.

It'd be a user profile, not a hardware profile.

 

That is to say, the contents of %USERPROFILE% and HKEY_CURRENT_USER, which have nothing to do with drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×