D. V. Devnull Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 And on that Ram-to-OS-related-note, a short way up................... 16TB? The words can not explain how expensive it will be, especially if it comes from Apple, so I will use a smiley face: Dunno if you're joking, but I doubt we'll be seeing more than 8GB-16GB of ram for a while. Even further, Nadril, I have to wonder who would need more than 8GB of RAM for anything, short of a Second Life or W.o.W. World, or a royally monstrous business database. I think we can both agree that even that much ram might never be necessary, especially if they are doing it properly with lightweight-but-feature-packed code. Also, I would hope that MicroSoft finally did something right with Windows 7, beyond what has been linked to in the above articles in this thread, causing less of a need for extra RAM. Sure, the MinWin (I think I named that right?) Kernel at 40MB is a start on shrinking things, but what gets stacked on is (in my opinion) probably the thing that will make-or-break the OS, and any chance of MicroSoft repairing their (currently horrid, to my knowledge, as well as -- again -- in my personal opinion) reputation. :-k As for that thing about 16TB, I also think it is very much a joke... I wouldn't expect to see that for another 20 years, by which time I'll be having my mid-life (age 45) crisis... LOL :lol: ~D. V. "We should never need that much!" Devnull (OT: Denismage, thanks for the idea to suggest adding that emote to the Tip.It Emote Set!) and normally with a cool mind.(Warning: This user can be VERY confusing to some people... And talks in 3rd person for the timebeing due to how insane they are... Sometimes even to themself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 D_V, Servers need it all the time but I was talking at a very much base user use. As far as my knowledge goes people don't exactly jump up and down either to use apple based machines as servers. W.o.W. World, And you realize that WoW stands for World Of Warcraft, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 And on that Ram-to-OS-related-note, a short way up................... 16TB? The words can not explain how expensive it will be, especially if it comes from Apple, so I will use a smiley face: Dunno if you're joking, but I doubt we'll be seeing more than 8GB-16GB of ram for a while. Even further, Nadril, I have to wonder who would need more than 8GB of RAM for anything, short of a Second Life or W.o.W. World, or a royally monstrous business database. I think we can both agree that even that much ram might never be necessary, especially if they are doing it properly with lightweight-but-feature-packed code.My uncle, who has been programming since the dark ages, was telling me about a question being asked about 25 or so years ago: Why would you need 64k of ram? What could possibly take that much? Need I say more? I have use for 8 gigs of ram myself, although it'll be a while until I can afford that. (I can hardly afford anything these days.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 My point was is that I don't see the point in saying Snow leopard will be able to do that when windows already can. And I'm sure Macs can do some things Windows can't. New iMacs are said to be have a blu-ray drive, but who knows. Blu-ray hasn't hit the market hard enough yet because of sheer price. $300 for a blu-ray drive? No thanks. I'm sure we'll see blu-ray lowering prices on drives and then taking over like the change from VHS to DVD. You do know that Windows PCs had the blu-ray drive for a while? Exactly. That and she seems to think that 64 bit is something new, when windows has had it for ages. I said improves upon. As in, already had, but further developing. Both OS's have had it for awhile now, but not all applications are 64-bit ready. Thus the need for improvement. "If you use a Macintosh or an iPhone, which honestly I would not recommend, you would be using code that I wrote more than 25 years ago," What a silly man.You do realize that what he said is entirely true? To accommodate the enormous amounts of memory being added to advanced hardware, Snow Leopard extends the 64-bit technology in Mac OS X to support breakthrough amounts of RAM up to a theoretical 16TB, or 500 times more than what is possible today. More RAM makes applications run faster, because more of their data can be kept in the very fast physical RAM instead of on the much slower hard disk. :wall: What part of 64 bit do people not understand? The code has been greatly improved upon since. That's like saying the computer I use from HP is a computer made by Dell 10 years ago. Of course it's going to be the same fundamental difference. And while I understand 64-bit and its limit, why exactly would they put up false information, that has been there for a year and no one suggesting they are wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 There's a difference there though, the code he's talking about is likely very core software, possibly even part of the kernel. You can't really use hardware as an example, I don't think. But seriously Apple is beginning to sound like Al Gore though, the way they say it you'd think that they invented 64-bit or something. Vista went 64-bit long before OS X, and windows does it very well at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 There's a difference there though, the code he's talking about is likely very core software, possibly even part of the kernel. You can't really use hardware as an example, I don't think. But seriously Apple is beginning to sound like Al Gore though, the way they say it you'd think that they invented 64-bit or something. Vista went 64-bit long before OS X, and windows does it very well at that. Gotta love marketing. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. V. Devnull Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Getting away from the "PC vs. Mac" volcano again for a few........................... D_V, Servers need it all the time but I was talking at a very much base user use. As far as my knowledge goes people don't exactly jump up and down either to use apple based machines as servers. No worries, I was talking more about users and basic servers also, as per the context of my post. I understand that normal servers need more. :thumbsup: ... Also, I was not thinking that much about Apple, seeing as I could wish they would take such a slapping that they would have to regain the reputation they had before the Mac before they would profit again. :twisted: (BTW, I'm actually expecting laura0077 to flame me over that opinion. :P ...) W.o.W. World, And you realize that WoW stands for World Of Warcraft, right? Yes, I do... I just didn't want it to seem vague, say, if a newbie came through and read this thread. ;) ... (That, and I will admit to being at least a little bit redundant, LOL! #-o :lol: ...) <<<Quote Snip>>> Even further, Nadril, I have to wonder who would need more than 8GB of RAM for anything, short of a Second Life or W.o.W. World, or a royally monstrous business database. I think we can both agree that even that much ram might never be necessary, especially if they are doing it properly with lightweight-but-feature-packed code. My uncle, who has been programming since the dark ages, was telling me about a question being asked about 25 or so years ago: Why would you need 64k of ram? What could possibly take that much? I'll let you (and in extension, him) have the point on that one. I still remember the document that I had to type up on an 'Apple ][e' (Yes, one of those PRODOS sweeties!) in AppleWorks v4, and the application needed the expanded 1 MB RAM card that we had installed in there in Slot Zero... Which reminds me, I still remember being the <insert a clean self-insult here> that located a bent pin on one of the RAM chips on the RAM expansion card... Which between my dad and I, we repaired rather nicely... :? Need I say more? I have use for 8 gigs of ram myself, although it'll be a while until I can afford that. (I can hardly afford anything these days.) I don't think more will have to be said. :thumbup: ... However, I will admit that I find myself slightly confused, as I personally wouldn't need more than 3GB of RAM at any time myself, given the bloat-code of OSes we use these days. (Although I've been doing my stuff so far inside of 1GB, with a heck of a lot of Virtual Memory overhead, sometimes coming close to out-of-RAM issues.) But, I can imagine some of the things that might cause need of 8GB, such as making stuff like those nifty digital renderings at sites like Visual Paradox, batches of photos, huge websites, and (as I mentioned before) those monstrous databases and game worlds. : ~D. V. "We must use RAM like as if we were gobbling Ice Cream, huh?" Devnull and normally with a cool mind.(Warning: This user can be VERY confusing to some people... And talks in 3rd person for the timebeing due to how insane they are... Sometimes even to themself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 I said improves upon. As in, already had, but further developing. Both OS's have had it for awhile now, but not all applications are 64-bit ready. Thus the need for improvement. Like Dsavi said, I'm talking purely about the OS's hardware. For one, you can't really "improve" on a 64 bit OS's ram limit, its impossible. Likewise Vista handles 64 bit incredibly well already -- having two seperate folders, one for 32 bit and the other for 64 bit. As such 64 bit processes can run in 64 bit mode easily, and you can still run all of the 32 bit processes as well. I just don't see what there is to improve on the 64 bit portion of an OS. Improve on the actual OS, sure. Improve on various software to make it more 64 bit compatible, sure. But you can't do much to the actual core. But seriously Apple is beginning to sound like Al Gore though, the way they say it you'd think that they invented 64-bit or something. Vista went 64-bit long before OS X, and windows does it very well at that. Exactly my point. 64 bit has been around for ages, and apple is just now getting around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I said improves upon. As in, already had, but further developing. Both OS's have had it for awhile now, but not all applications are 64-bit ready. Thus the need for improvement. Like Dsavi said, I'm talking purely about the OS's hardware. For one, you can't really "improve" on a 64 bit OS's ram limit, its impossible. Likewise Vista handles 64 bit incredibly well already -- having two seperate folders, one for 32 bit and the other for 64 bit. As such 64 bit processes can run in 64 bit mode easily, and you can still run all of the 32 bit processes as well. I just don't see what there is to improve on the 64 bit portion of an OS. Improve on the actual OS, sure. Improve on various software to make it more 64 bit compatible, sure. But you can't do much to the actual core. But seriously Apple is beginning to sound like Al Gore though, the way they say it you'd think that they invented 64-bit or something. Vista went 64-bit long before OS X, and windows does it very well at that. Exactly my point. 64 bit has been around for ages, and apple is just now getting around to it. While I agree, I just question why they put that tidbit up there, the 16TB memory limit I mean. It's going to be sold only in 64-bit (perhaps higher?) but there is a smaller limit on 64-bit. They wouldn't but it up there if it was not going to be true, surely. So is there a work-around for it, or rather, how is it possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 16TB is the limit, and it's really the "only" limit to the architecture. Just like 32 bit has a limit of 3.5GB. It can't be higher or lower, it just is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Oh, sorry. I thought you meant it was lower than that. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slymongoose Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Please do forgive me for not following the flow of the in-thread discussion, but... With reference to Nadril's original post and the thread overall... Why get so excited about Windows 7...isn't it just an upgraded version of Vista? and I could write a book about all the complaints people seems to have about Vista. I mean, its like saying IE8 will be fantastic compared to IE7 just because its an upgraded version, but at the end of the day, it still is...and will always be Internext Explorer... and it still is...and will always be Microsoft... I accept Microsoft...and all its "baggage". They make great OS's, in my humble opinion of course, but they obviously fall down in other areas. If you have a problem with Vista, which is a great OS, in my humble opinion once more, whats to say you (and I'm speaking generally) won't have a dislike for Windows 7? Quotes from Sly: => "There's no magic to programming, just LOGIC." => "Only the best, is good enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Please do forgive me for not following the flow of the in-thread discussion, but... With reference to Nadril's original post and the thread overall... Why get so excited about Windows 7...isn't it just an upgraded version of Vista? and I could write a book about all the complaints people seems to have about Vista. I mean, its like saying IE8 will be fantastic compared to IE7 just because its an upgraded version, but at the end of the day, it still is...and will always be Internext Explorer... and it still is...and will always be Microsoft... I accept Microsoft...and all its "baggage". They make great OS's, in my humble opinion of course, but they obviously fall down in other areas. If you have a problem with Vista, which is a great OS, in my humble opinion once more, whats to say you (and I'm speaking generally) won't have a dislike for Windows 7? The hate for vista is part bandwagon hate and part hating the size of it. And they are making Windows 7 drastically less bloated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamong Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Vista performance is fairly good nowadays and if 7 is going to improve on that and remove the bloat, Windows can only get better. [Tip.It Mod][Retired][Add your Steam name here!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blade995 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 People need to get one thing clear about Windows 7. The kernel is not Minwin, it is using an upgraded Windows Vista kernel, it is going to be over the 40MBs the Minwin kernel is reported at. Minwin is being used for a completely different operating system (not yet announced). A person I know got his hands on the new Windows 7 build that Microsoft demoed a few days ago. So I'm going to burn a copy from him as soon as I see him. I really want to try out the new features since the M3 build that I currently have. I don't see why Microsoft is even developing a 32bit desktop version. Every computer made in the last 4 years can do 64bit. Them developing a 32bit version is just stalling the move to an all 64bit operating system which would push programs to be natively coded for 64bit. Vista should be the last operating system that is 32bit. Besides, if your computer does not have a 64bit processor, you probably can't run Windows 7 well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errdoth Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So ahhh..my ahh.."friend" got his hands on a copy of this...and it's installing on ahh....his computer right now ;) [hide=Installer looks rather snazzy so far][/hide] Last.fm Signature Overlays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Tell me how your "friend" likes it. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Sounds interesting, I'm interested particularly in what your "Friend" thinks of the new UI. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubol Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 how you get the demo ? Signature by LittleboyRunescape and impatient people are like ying and yang, they exist as one, they need each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errdoth Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Sounds interesting, I'm interested particularly in what your "Friend" thinks of the new UI. :) Well, it turns out that he got ripped and ended up with a crappy version that didn't have the new taskbar :| It looks, runs, and feels like vista. He's going to try to find another one now :P [hide=Awww...][/hide] how you get the demo ? Completely legally, of course. Pirates arr bad! Last.fm Signature Overlays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubol Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 how you get the demo ? Completely legally, of course. Pirates arr bad! I get it :D Signature by LittleboyRunescape and impatient people are like ying and yang, they exist as one, they need each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Tell your friend not to lose heart, and post, uhh, send you lots of screenshots! And tell him too that build 6933 is the latest version, that's the one he should look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denismage Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 My remote friend I barely know says it's a 3GB download... Is it worth for my friend I barely know to download it? People who have tried it say it's actually faster than Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 My brother from another mother tells me that's suspiciously small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepole Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 When does the beta come out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now