Yeah this is ridiculous... This should be optional, and besides, Metro apps are being very fast to me so far..
I'm not sure about everyone else but I am tired of Microsoft bringing
all these versions of Windows out, Windows Vista sucked so Windows 7 comes out.
Now not even a few years later here comes Windows 8, it seems more for people who what to touch there screen and it's a pain in the ass if you ask me.
We don't have much of a choose in the os department, we have Windows or Linux.
Linux can be nice but you can't install something with just a few clicks.
There is another os that is out there but is only in Alpha stage right now and needs support to get it going in the right direction, it is just like Windows just without Microsoft backing it.
It's called ReactOs, not sure if anyone has ever heard about it but here is a link.
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
Will a fresh install be required to beta test? If not I may give this a try :b
Quote:Linux can be nice but you can't install something with just a few clicks.
If it's about running windows software in wine - you're right, sometimes it requires some tricks, sometimes it's about just to click setup.exe, next,next and you're done.
But for native software, windows is ages behind unix packet managers and repositories.
you can install almost everything with GUI packet manager in one-two clicks, or with simple command line , and system tracks dependencies for you, there's no way to install software that doesn't work because of missing library when installing something from repositories. And removal is even easier unlike that nasty installer mess in windows.
(04-15-2011, 01:23 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2011, 11:54 PM)silveruniverse Wrote: [ -> ]Firstly, its gonna be (apparently) released by 2012
- 128 bit OS
64-bit already supports 128GB of memory! how much does 128-bit support?!
A 64 bit adress bus would support far more than 128GB of memory. The adress busses of the current 64 bit processors are 36 bits wide, as far as I know.
Quote:Linux can be nice but you can't install something with just a few clicks.
You can. Use a package manager.
64 bit (a.k.a. 2^64) unsigned range is approximately 0 - 18,446,744,100,000,000,000. In other words a 64 bit memory address can be mapped to up to 16 exabytes of memory, or 16 billion GB.
Quote:The adress busses of the current 64 bit processors are 36 bits wide, as far as I know.
Incorrect. You're thinking of PAE mode which allows for segmented 36 bit physical addresses. It's used to allow a 32 bit OS to use up to 64GB of physical memory space. Virtual addresses are still 32 bits though (windows limits the virtual addresses to 31 bits for some reason, unless you're running an x64 edition).
Both intel and AMD cpus currently use 64 bit physical addresses when operating in 64 bit long operating mode. However there is a fundamental limitation with the current system which prevents software from using the entire range. Virtual addresses are only 48 bits. And although physical addresses are 64 bits you can't change the last 16 bits so the usable size is only 48 bits. This means current x86-64 chips can only address up to 256TB of physical memory. Windows visa/7 x64 editions don't even use the full 48 bits though, they only use the first 44 bits (16 TB addressable).
(02-20-2012, 08:32 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]64 bit (a.k.a. 2^64) unsigned range is approximately 0 - 18,446,744,100,000,000,000. In other words a 64 bit memory address can be mapped to up to 16 exabytes of memory, or 16 billion GB.
Quote:The adress busses of the current 64 bit processors are 36 bits wide, as far as I know.
Incorrect. You're thinking of PAE mode which allows for segmented 36 bit physical addresses. It's used to allow a 32 bit OS to use up to 64GB of physical memory space. Virtual addresses are still 32 bits though.
Hm. Wikipedias list of intel microprocessors (the german version), for example, clearly lists an address bus width of 36 bits for most modern architectures listed (Core i7, Core2Duo, ...). Only the data bus always has a width of 64 bits.
This seems very reasonable for me, because building a 64 bit address bus sounds like a huge waste of space. Why would you do that?
Greetings
