I want a copy of Windows 7 to try as well!

Businesses are going to be hard-pressed to upgrade all their equipment and software to accomodate a 64b-only OS.  I don't see it happening for a long, long time.  There is zero incentive for me to abandon what not only works, but is necessary for critical business functions.  The app vendors are going to expect big bucks for upgrades that I can't afford & won't buy.

I wouldn't even bother worrying what businesses adopt , no matter what OS it is they are late to upgrade to it. Be it Vista or WS2008. Even hardware wise they are slow on adoption. As it stands right now WS2008 is the last server OS to have a 32-bit/64-bit version. From now on server-side operating systems will be strictly 64-bit, but with that being said they can run 32-bit applications flawlessly.

 It honestly wouldn't surprise me that Windows 7 could be the last 32-bit only OS. I thought for sure Vista would be, but I have a feeling with the amount of users making the switch from XP 32-bit to Vista 64-bit we might be seeing the last 32-bit workstation OS. Windows 7 could very well be the turning point, but like anything it may flop and it may end up being 4+ years before 64-bit becomes the industry standard.

I don't understand why this 64-bit only OS deal hasn't hit years before, like... when 64-bit processors actually came out?! It seems like a hit or miss situation that anything works 64-bit or how game developers for the LONGEST time have been capped at only 2 gigs when motherboards are well able to go over 8 gigs or more! Still... despite the new OS big M's pulling out, I don't see a big change for it to do anything as far as a great advance may occur.

Sorta like DX10, it's here... but what's being done with it?

Also when W7 comes out... what's that mean for everyone who's using Vista Ultimate now?

Well I have a few things I'd like them to sort out.  

Everything pausing because I put a scratched CD in the drive or accidentally clicked on the floppy symbol when it's empty. Ok, I could turn off autorun, but really, what happened to multi-tasking?

Folder views.  I set everything to list, because I like list.  I agree that icons that show you what is inside the folder and maybe give you a preview are very nice and useful and impressive.  I still prefer list, I can get around quicker that way.  So, when I do 'apply to all folders', why are there so many that refuse to take list as their default?

The whole user-specific folders mess.  I would like some restriction on where exactly programs can put their stuff, so that AppData actually goes into AppData and doesn't just sit arbitrarily in my user space root.  The main thing I have learned is that my documents should never ever go into My Documents, because it's too full of clutter, so I'll never find them again.

How about the ability to Multitask, in Vista 64 Ultimate any application has the ability to steal focus. I have to shut down everything to play a game and I can't start Outlook in the background and continue to browse, sadly pathetic.

Simon

This is already available to developers. It appears they're going to use it in more applications in Windows 7, possibly including Wordpad and Paint.

Not that I ever use Wordpad or paint. Wordpad doesn't even have a simple spell check, and Paint is seriously underpowered.

Agreed. Or at least make it the default.

Surely you've heard of Autoruns. Yes, it would be nice to have it as part of the OS rather than a separate application.

Live Mesh. 'nuff said. It looks like a lot more will be announced at PDC.

Such hardware is becoming difficult to find. In order to get past Microsoft's WHQL labs and get the "Designed for Windows" logo approved to be used on your products, you must have 64 bit drivers. It is already a requirement for all new hardware.

Well, the Quick Access toolbar can be customized. One of the major problems with previous versions of office was that more people destroyed their interface and didn't know how to reset it than actually knew and used the customization features. Turns out total customization was quite rare.

You can blame stupid/lazy users for this "little bit of UI authoritarianism."

I see 64 bit happening across the board in the consumer market. Major OEMs are already making it available and even the default for new consumer PCs.

Businesses have always been slow anyways. I've heard that quite a few businesses are still using Windows 2000.

Totally, completely agreed. This whole folder view thing is a royal mess. I keep banging my head on this. It's absurdly inconsistent and loves to forget settings. There's no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. It needs to be fixed.

Agreed. It is annoying.

Developers: My documents is for my documents. it is not for your program settings or a place to put customization features. Please do not place anything in there.

Windows ME was made and released because MS had to fill time and space until there were enough device drivers available for the Win2K kernel. MS does not write the device drivers the hardware vendors do, even for the ones that ship with the Windows disks. So when vendors don't want to under take the efforts to write drivers for a newer Windows kernel MS id forced to create some sort of interim version until such time as drivers catch up with the technology.

That is in part the case with 64-bit drivers now. But Vista was not released to fiull a catch-up gap in drivers as ME was. However in a less technical manner Vista will becaome one of those "wish we hadn't released" products like ME and Bob, and several other products that just embarass developers at MS.

So let me ask a question of Brad and others. I have the ability to run Vista 64 but my system is an Intel P965M chipset and the BIOS doesn't support the memory remapping function to allow me to set my RAM between 3 and 4 GB to a higher address. That means that even though I have 4 GB I cannot access that last GIG regardless of 64-bit O/S or not. I have verified this with both Vista 64 and several 2.6.5x and highed Lynux flavors. All my hardware is fully supported with 64-bit drivers.

I primarily use my PC for gaming and email and surfing. And of course my Object Desktop decorations.

Should I still go to Vista 64 or not?

I hope that windows 7 gives the ability for any version to log into a domain server...  It irritated me that windows vista did not allow several of my computers to log into my domain server because they were "Home" versions.  Some homes have networks...

Windows ME (Mistake Edition) was a pile of junk. Even MS admitted to that. WinME was a "novalty" OS that was released at the turn of the century. WinME was nothing more then a hacked up version of 98, and that hack job caused nothing but issues.

Now, for the 32<>64bit debate, I agree that the move should be made to 64bit, but still allow backwards combatibility for 32bit apps. I know we all should move forward, but there are certian apps/games that I myself just cant let go. For example, I FINALLY moved passed the origional version of MusicMatch jukebox (the one before yahoo obtained it). This was the last great release, which only ran on XP.

Also, most of us still have only 32bit procs in there machines, and dont really have the funds to go out and buy the new hardware, so the choice of 32 or 64bit is nice. I had a 64bit machine with vista ultimate 64 and ultimate 32 installed (was doing some tests as to which I liked more) and yes, 64bit version was faster, more stable, and still ran my 32bit apps, but when it ran my 32bit apps, it had compatibility issues (most of my games and apps are ment for 32bit) where the 32bit version OS didnt. It was this reason that my now current machine is 32bit only.

Lets not forget cost. Yes, some vendors allow free upgrades for there software (so you can get the 64bit version of it), but some put it off until the next major release (which you have to pay for), and the only big change that thay made was 64bit support. This is the other reason why I am still using 32bit. What I have works for me, so I dont see the need to purchase new software for just the 64bit support.

On the other hand, 64bit offers things that 32 just cant. Greater speed, reliability, and greater hardware advances. Almost all major vendors now support both 64 and 32bit platforms, so drivers are not an issue. The only thing really that is holding back 64bit is the apps (or should I say the people that code them) themselves. Once everybody finally gets onboard the 64bit train, only THEN will we be ready for 128 or 264bit platforms.

We all must move forward, that much is known, but until all of the programers, coders, developers, ect. get it together and release 64bit only software, I am perfectly happy with my 32bit setup.

For me, that's pretty close to telling a pastry chef who's just been diagnosed diabetic that Splenda is a lot like sugar. Technically accurate, but pretty much cruel in its fullness.

Instead of being able to create and place my own toolbars, including menus with custom keyboard paths for complex tasks, I'm left in an amputated state where I can have at most 10 quickly keyboard-accessible single commands. The ribbon doesn't even want you to try to learn a keyboard task path--there's no way to leave the accelerator keys called out in the UI.

I don't know if Microsoft actually have any involvement with it, but I think they should bundle Paint.Net with Windows.

64 bit will allow use of all 4 GB and access to 64 bit registers, so there is still some benefit. I don't think it's a big enough benefit to warrant completely replacing the OS on an existing system, though. The best thing to do is to upgrade to 64 bit when you buy a new computer.

You'd be surprised how much hardware now supports 64 bit. The later Pentium 4s and all of the Core 2s support 64 bits. Pretty much anything from Intel or AMD that you buy new is going to support 64 bits.

This is exactly what is being done in 64 bit Vista. Other than a firewall and a bluetooth driver when Vista was first released, I have yet to encounter an application that does not work on my 64 bit OS. The mythical "application that does not work in 64 bit Vista" has yet to show up within the last year of using it. All of my 32 bit applications currently work with no complaints. I don't think about my OS being 64 bit when I buy software anymore.

In addition, finding hardware is easy: I just look for the (works with/certified for) Windows Vista logo. That tells me that Microsoft has checked the drivers for certain minimum requirements, which include making sure that that 64 bit drivers are available. In addition, hardware manufacturers have been doing a great job getting their drivers out. My bluetooth device now has real drivers rather than hackish workarounds. So all of my hardware, including some rather old stuff, now has 64 bit drivers and I can confidently say that compatibility is really no longer an issue.

MrBlackWar: You completely do not understand the situation. You do not need 64 bit applications to take advantage of 64 bit computing. Even 32 bit applications can benefit if you have several of them running at the same time.

Let's say I have two 32 bit applications, and each one uses 3 GB of memory. I can't run both of them at the same time in a 32 bit OS, since I can't have 6 GB of memory on a 32 bit system. But I can run both of them at the same time in a 64 bit OS with 6 or more GB of memory. I benefit from having a 64 bit OS even if I'm just running 32 bit applications.

Actually you might be able to with the PAE switch enabled. But there is a downside, the kernel has to manage that additional memory table which will reduce overall performance a bit.

Every time there is a new Version of Windows there is a small crowd saying, "yay, I'm looking forward to THIS version!  Its going to be everything the LAST version wasn't"

Maybe I'm old and cynical, or maybe I've seen this statement every time there is a new windows...   from 3 to 95, 98, 2000...  and thats just the Desktop versions...  I finally gave up at XP.  Anyway I'm not going to argue with people on the internet.  Suffice it to say, XP wasn't everything it was cracked up to be.  Vista, well do I need to say anything?  I'm not holding my breath for "Windows 7".

Okay, I have to get a dig in...  Stardock and Ironclad, can you guys start publishing on Mac as well?  They have the Lions Share of the Notebook Market, and if you look at retail sales only, they have 15% of the market.  That and I wouldn't have to dual boot anymore!!!    :)

Snazzed

As I said here in the past - "I look forward to Windows 7 - but do not really care for what they did with it! I'm waiting on the 64 bit Windows 8 a true 64 bit OS!!!"

When they make an OS 32 and/or 64 bit - I do not believe it is complete. Too many variables to have problems with. Make it 64 bit and nothing else and I'm sold completely. We always try to make things to where it works with all the stuff from the past and expect it to work with everything new and old. Thus it does - but with certain new problems. I do not want more problems with a 64 bit system. I want a 64 bit system that is just that - 64 bit only and nothing else at all. New software with better design for just 64 bit and all.

Then and only then will I upgrade to that version and stop using XP Pro completely. Till then I'm using XP Pro for like my base system and Vista as my working desktop.

Windows 7 in my eye is nothing more than another tool for the younger and much older folks that want an easy to use system. Thus it is with limits to just that.

I've seen how the new office works with Windows 7 and again how many offices are gona upgrade because it looks better. None... People in most offices do not have the means to choose which system they use. I presently use Office 2007 Ultimate with my Vista Ultimate and Office 2003 with my XP Pro.. But I find a lot of things that does not work well with my new office - like Mobi and or PDA's. Thus I have to work to where it is saved in older formats to be used for these reasons.

So then you go with another new office - the which we are testing right now and it has another so called format too! Specially made for 64 bit! Great - but then what happens to those not using this with older systems and/or PDA's and such the like? Well of course lets upgrade again. NO chance! Most companies are very tight right at this time and it does not look good for the future either. Ours more likely will - but a lot will not. Then you try using it internationally and you have problems. Which with the company I work for does. We have offices in 12 countries and most are independent of the main offices for their own reasons. But yet still part of the large corp. structure.

I find all the time I'm online fixing something for France or Spain and they never knew what was the answer to their little problem with Office 2007. Most corp. will not upgrade again after the Vista and Office 2007 restructuring. But as I said we will and I'll have to be re-trained on all the new stuff to be able to fix all the little stuff here and there. But I know already for a fact a lot of other companies are not going to follow us into this new age.

That is my problems with Windows 7 and the new Office. I wait for true 64 bit and a true 64 bit Office and I'm buying all of that and asking my CEO to implement the use of such a system for the future. Which I have done thus far and it is agreed that we are to do just that. Next is to implement it into the field area with laptops and such database programs we use.

We are at a stage now to where that will be an easy change over to 64 bit. With all the changes in browsers and the new server 2008 we are looking at a true 64 bit system that is ready for this and other systems we use.

Just my opinion on things for the future as it fits my world of life in general here at this time and place...

Shelbygt - the 32 bit compatibility is directly from the microchips. It's not something that is emulated at a software level. When a 64 bit OS wants to run a 32 bit application, it just tells the hardware to run it in 32 bit mode. This is why there are virtually no troubles running 32 bit software in a 64 bit OS.

As I've said, I've yet to encounter this mythical 32 bit application that does not work with my 64 bit OS within the last year of using this OS.

That's a bit understandable - mobile software is often slow to update, and seems to frequently get abandoned by the authors.

That being said, I updated DataViz's Documents to Go software on my device, and it supports the new Office 2007 formats nicely .

You claim to be testing a new version of Office specifically designed for 64 bit? I am unaware of this - is this for real, or is this something theoretical?

Explorer's stupidity in refusing to save the view (I prefer Details, but apparently Microsoft has a funny definition of all in "use this view for ALL folders") and window size settings depending on which folder you're looking at, which folder you opened it on, what time of day it is, and the color of your coffee mug alone was enough for me to nuke my Vista dual boot and stick with XP. I just don't have time to be fighting my own computer; if it can't work properly and as directed, what's the point?

Why, to keep you more interested in your next computer than you are in the one in front of you

Heh. Considering that I build my own machines and get the OS free from the university, they've little to get from me in that case :p

at my last position we upgraded to office 2007. after first i hated the ribbon, but now i sort of miss it. i don't like the ribbon in and of itself, but now that i've been there and back again, it is a bit easier to use than the Office 2003 interface.

amen.

i enjoyed your comments on memory. i'm in a bit of a bind right now, myself.  i've got 2GB of RAM and a 512MB graphics card. the thing is, i'm looking to upgrade to a 4870X2, which has a total of 2GB of memory itself (though for all intents and purposes it's cut in half, as is the case with any X2 graphics solution). if i stick with a 32-bit OS, i'll likely only be able to address 1.5 GB of regular RAM, and that's not counting the impact a secondary graphics card will have (for running a third monitor).

i want to upgrade, but i really don't want to deal with Vista. i could get 64-bit XP pro, but it seems like a waste to buy a new copy of XP at this point in time. but on the other hand, it's frustrating to want to upgrade and need to account for the OS in the process. i hate to play the waiting game on an OS that's still pretty far off.

thinking about a Core i7 rig? they won't be able to hit 16 GB until there are 4GB DDR3 sticks, but considering it features triple channel memory, 12 GB is still pretty good.

curse you! where do you go? maybe i'll apply to grad school there.

hmm iwould upgrade but i like my Xp to much that and my comp is new already so its not worth it. plus id have to replace the mother board to accomidate the need for more RAM slots.  Oh well as I have yet to find a comp that mine could run circles around.

The sad thing is I know why it's so inconsistent. It's because Microsoft decided to merge Program Manager and File Manager way back in Windows 95, and they have been fighting over which way is the best way to view and manage the file system structure ever since.

Frankly, they should have stayed as separate applications and should not have been merged.

Every time they tweak the shell now, they make it worse.

Here are some of my observations:

• They are fighting over "expected behavior during launch." When I hit Win+E, I expect a File Manager like interface. When I launch from an icon on my desktop, I expect a Program Manager like interface. Unfortunately, now that they are "merged" they act like folders rather than separate applications.
  
• They are trying to make windows change their behavior so that it's folder based. This is instead of the alternative they were using earlier, where a window always stayed the same regardless of which folder you were displaying. I hate this. My window should never ever ever "morph" into something different. It drives me especially crazy in Vista when my hierarchy disappears because I've opened my documents.
  
• There is an eternal fight between using one window for managing files and multiple windows. I prefer the one window approach. Maybe two windows if I need to move or copy files between two locations - but I certainly do not want a dozen windows cluttering my screen.
• This is probably also the result of some "vision" to get rid of the file hierarchy. Nevermind that there was never anything wrong with the hierarchy, it just didn't fit into their plan, so they're trying to shove this new system down our throats.

More than anything this is probably some sort of internal battle over which direction the Windows shell should take in the future. I pray Windows 7 fixes this, and that we don't continue this battle in future versions of Windows.

From what I've heard, the Office team that helped create the ribbon UI is involved in the shell now, and I hope they realize what a big mess this whole thing is. I hope they come up with a better solution, because right now the Windows shell is just horrible. Too many conflicting visions of which direction they want to take it in the future.

I wouldn't recommend 64 bit XP. Hardware manufacturers never really accepted it; you are unlikely to find many drivers for it. Vista is a much better choice for 64 bit computing.

Windows 7 is the lipsticked pig of OSes, just like Sarah Palin..there's nothing under the hood that we haven't already seen and seen much better.

WinFS? Didn't think so. Instant On? Not a chance. Secure data...only if you are lucky. UAC that doesn't behave as if it was programmed by Lucifer himself and the same bizarre (and dangerous) mail client and other weak utilities and tools.

But we did get a UI that seemingly tried to thwart your productivity and DRM that can quite easily shut your PC off (NBC and the Do-Not-Broadcaast flag jog anyone's memory?) and a host of DRM related driver instabilities due to state-polling multiple times a second.

Sure 2G can be a limit, but it isn't. In fact Stardock prides itself on writing games that run on the largest percentage of platforms so there will be no 8G footprint games for a long time by their own corporate philosophy.

64-bit computing isn't necessarily faster, in fact, due to the larger words you can fill up your on chip cache much more quickly than you might expect...causing slowdows where none were before. You need to double the size of cache to make up for the double sized data being moved...much like the 12M cache on certain chips. 1M and 2M per core just won't cut it.

Speed up .NET with XP and you have an OS that can handle the next few years. Manufactured DX10 non-productivity issues not withstanding!

Lets hope they fix or delete all the broke crap before adding more broke new crap.