MS back in the game...

[JerecDrak2]

Check out this Ars-Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars)

Looks like MS won't be letting any new version of Windows enjoy a long life like XP did. This means Linux distros have their work cut out for them as MS looks like it will be going full steam ahead with their OS development, will Linux be able to keep up?

An exciting, competition filled few years await:popcorn:

[hessiess]

Still relies on the ancient, extremely bloated x86 architecture.

[doas777]

there is nothing in win7 that i need over vista, and very little in vista that I want over xp. whith each subsequent version, the new stuff gets less and less pertinent and important.

we don;t need to race them.

[NoaHall]

Might I just add - their 64 bit doesn't even have proper backwards compatibility with 32 bit. How are they going to jump to the next along? I presume they are planning to attempt to take over the supercomputer section of business. Good luck with that. If you spend that much money on a computer, the last thing you want is Microsoft.

[blur xc]

128bit? Is 64bit already not enough?

Well, just the other day I was wondering when os and chip manufacturers would stop supporting 32bit. If all new computers and os's all came 64 bit standard, it would accelerate the development of native 64 bit apps. It's as if the existence of 32 bit is holding back the acceptance and growth of 64bit...

Apparently, it seems as though 64 bit is destined to do the same to 128 bit...

Bm

[JerecDrak2]

Well there are always use cases for what may seem like pointless features. I admit a 128-bit architecture is probably overkill, but features desktop users like ourselves find worthless may be useful in the server space, and I'm sure MS will deliver some awesome new tech for the desktop. Time will tell!

[SunnyRabbiera]

A new windows version once a year is nothing, Ubuntu does two a year :D
Actually its not that big of a deal, there are linuxes that have yearly releases

[KiwiNZ]

They never left

[LowSky]

128 bit is going to be useful how exactly? we barely have full 64bit application support, and we have many many years before the memory address are used up on 64bit.

[Shpongle]

we don;t need to race them.


we do when hardware and devices are being made to target largest market!, linux has to be up to date too or it will become obsolete! , imagine you could only use floppy disks in linux! see what im getting at

[SunnyRabbiera]

128 bit is going to be useful how exactly? we barely have full 64bit application support, and we have many many years before the memory address are used up on 64bit.

128 bit is just not going to work, I agree.
We barely even touched 64bit


128bit? Is 64bit already not enough?

Well, just the other day I was wondering when os and chip manufacturers would stop supporting 32bit. If all new computers and os's all came 64 bit standard, it would accelerate the development of native 64 bit apps. It's as if the existence of 32 bit is holding back the acceptance and growth of 64bit...

Apparently, it seems as though 64 bit is destined to do the same to 128 bit...

Bm


32bit is still viable thanks to microsoft and program developers who only work for 32bit.
I mean for criminy sake we are still waiting for adobe to finally get off its *** for 64bit flash that works.

[NoaHall]

Erm, excuse me, but 64 bit flash works, and it works better than the 32 bit version.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Erm, excuse me, but 64 bit flash works, and it works better than the 32 bit version.

For some people though its still not the ideal solution.

[NoaHall]

Ideal solution ? What's that meant to mean? A better version is not ideal? Nice crazy world you live in there.

[Dimitriid]

A new windows version once a year is nothing

Actually is anywhere from USD $100 to $300 per year, to me that's something.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Ideal solution ? What's that meant to mean? A better version is not ideal? Nice crazy world you live in there.

Yeh but its still in alpha/beta status, people have waited for proper flash in 64bit for ages and even if its a decent beta it doesnt bode well that it takes so long to get things up to speed.
By the time flash 10 64bit goes full we will probably have flash 11.

[NoaHall]

Ah, I see. But it's a nice stable one. No problems for anyone I know after installing.

Hopefully, flash will be fully killed when websites cross their videos other to html 5.

[Firestem4]

Actually is anywhere from USD $100 to $300 per year, to me that's something.

I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does with their pricing scheme. If they plan to releases an OS every 1-3 years (or whatever its destined to be). They better not think they can get away with charging the absorbent prices we already pay for Vista and now Win7. If they do they're living in a fantasy world.

[Dragonbite]

While it may be a good idea for Microsoft, a lot is going to depend on seamlessly updates and the price they are going to charge for it.

This method has been working for Linux for a while so why would Microsoft not consider this model?

Maybe this will actually allow Microsoft to start cleaning up their code and keeping things "fresh" instead of relying on ol' Windows XP to take up the slack when Vista fell down.

Now they could really shock people by providing upgrade for FREE! That would make some noise!

[forrestcupp]

They can't really squeeze many more GHz out of a chip anymore, so now the race is in memory bandwidth and the number of multiple cores.

And this article is nothing about MS releasing OS's more often. They're just getting back on track with where they always were, which we already knew. XP was the only long lasting version. Other than that, they have always released a new version every couple of years.

[kavon89]

What's the point of a 128-bit system? To my knowledge the only tangible benefits of using a 64-bit operating system over a 32-bit is more memory addresses.

[NoaHall]

They can address 64 bit long words. This is twice as large as 32, so they can process *in theory* twice as fast (well, really, twice as much data in the same time). However, not many applications currently use 64 bit long words.

[Regenweald]

This is kind of sad, Linux went 64 bit first and linuxites went yay! take that Microsoft and apple! now Windows wants to take it to the next step and we get backwater comments like we don't need 128 bit ? Maybe your dinkey little setup doesn't but if we are ever going to realize quantum computing and general leaps in technology, you know, the kind that took us from the abacus to the Supercomputer, at each step one of the camps is going to have to take on the next level. Whether it be FOSS of Proprietary.

Some of you seem confused, Linux on the desktop is a sliver, Microsoft is king/Queen(for the P.C people) Linux on the server is King/Queen and that is where Microsoft is going to push hard. They have their hands and research funding in all kinds of experimental projects right now and something is going to pay off soon. They don't even need a better server product, it just needs to be as good as. That and with one good hard push/strongarm, the same kind that chased linux off the netbook, we could see the little stream of driver acceptance dry up. Windows runs the desktop what happens if it runs the server ? You can't just bank on redmond making crappy products forever, they might trip, fall and land in something superb.

[Frak]

they never left
+1

@regenwald
Microsoft beat Linux to 64-bit. NT 4 contains code to go 64-bit, if compiled with that specific option in the header.

[Regenweald]

+1

@regenwald
Microsoft beat Linux to 64-bit. NT 4 contains code to go 64-bit, if compiled with that specific option in the header.

You're right, should have specified widespread use and adoption.

[SomeGuyDude]

there is nothing in win7 that i need over vista, and very little in vista that I want over xp. whith each subsequent version, the new stuff gets less and less pertinent and important.

we don;t need to race them.

There isn't anything new in Linux that I need, either. There hasn't been some shattering new development in YEARS that was absolutely crucial to my usage.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

Some of you seem confused, Linux on the desktop is a sliver, Microsoft is king/Queen(for the P.C people) Linux on the server is King/Queen and that is where Microsoft is going to push hard. They have their hands and research funding in all kinds of experimental projects right now and something is going to pay off soon. They don't even need a better server product, it just needs to be as good as. That and with one good hard push/strongarm, the same kind that chased linux off the netbook, we could see the little stream of driver acceptance dry up. Windows runs the desktop what happens if it runs the server ? You can't just bank on redmond making crappy products forever, they might trip, fall and land in something superb.

I agree with this. I'm always surprised by how many people use the phrase "how can we compete?" etc. Linux doesn't compete on the desktop market. It just doesn't. Microsoft owns the desktop. Anything new or bleeding edge is probably going to come through Windows. However, I use Linux because I like it. That's all that matters to me.

[t0p]

Check out this Ars-Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars)

Looks like MS won't be letting any new version of Windows enjoy a long life like XP did. This means Linux distros have their work cut out for them as MS looks like it will be going full steam ahead with their OS development, will Linux be able to keep up?


When Microsoft released XP, they certainly didn't expect it to be around for as long as it has been. There's no reason to believe Windows 8 will follow hard on the heels of 7. The Ars Technica article talks about 8 coming out in 2011/12 - it's quite possible that we'll still be waiting for it in 2015!

As for all the wonderful technology that MS are supposed to be developing: who says this isn't just vaporware? Though I've got to disagree with those who claim there's no need for 128-bit. I think the exponential nature of computing development rather dictates that 128-bit will come soon, and that there will be a demand for it.


An exciting, competition filled few years await:popcorn:

I hope so! If Microsoft do push the envelope like the article suggests, that will spur on the Linux devs to do even better. And we'll all benefit from an arms race like that!

[ade234uk]

All Microsoft are doing are confusing their customers with different operating systems.
Microsoft have always been in the game so it makes no difference.

Linux desktop will continue to eat in to Microsoft's share whatever happens. Once you use Linux you don't really want to go back.

[-grubby]

Only 128-bit? I WANT 256 BIT DAMMIT


All Microsoft are doing are confusing their customers with different operating systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

[RichardLinx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

Well played.:)

[VertexPusher]

Erm, excuse me, but 64 bit flash works, and it works better than the 32 bit version.
64bit Flash is stable but not feature-complete yet. It lacks support for encrypted streaming. That's why it does not work with sites such as imeem.com.

[tom66]

128 bits is more memory in atoms than the Earth can possibly give us.

64 bits is still huge. If you ever get an operating system using 64 bits of physical+virtual, you seriously need to reconsider your processes. How an earth could you use so much memory?

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

I hope so! If Microsoft do push the envelope like the article suggests, that will spur on the Linux devs to do even better. And we'll all benefit from an arms race like that!

Or, worst case scenario, we'll get a product that's actually worth paying for. :)

[Exodist]

Check out this Ars-Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars)

Looks like MS won't be letting any new version of Windows enjoy a long life like XP did. This means Linux distros have their work cut out for them as MS looks like it will be going full steam ahead with their OS development, will Linux be able to keep up?

An exciting, competition filled few years await:popcorn:

GNU/Linux has nothing to fear from M$ until M$ starts using GNU/Linux as the base of Windows.

[koshatnik]

Check out this Ars-Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars)

Looks like MS won't be letting any new version of Windows enjoy a long life like XP did. This means Linux distros have their work cut out for them as MS looks like it will be going full steam ahead with their OS development, will Linux be able to keep up?

An exciting, competition filled few years await:popcorn:

Exciting OS = Oxymoron.

[speedwell68]

TBH I have little care how quickly Microsoft develop their OS. I still won't be using it. They way I see it they will be just polishing the previous release each time. It will still be bloaty, virus ridden crap.

[koshatnik]

It will still be bloaty, virus ridden crap.

Only if you're an idiot. I've not had a single virus in 10 years of Windows use. Anyone with half a brain and some common sense can make XP, for example, as tight as any Linux distro. I still use XP now. It's fine. Runs very quickly.

[scottuss]

TBH I have little care how quickly Microsoft develop their OS. I still won't be using it. They way I see it they will be just polishing the previous release each time. It will still be bloaty, virus ridden crap.

Exactly.

They often state very early on before each release that it will be "a major re-write" etc etc but at the end of the day, they're just building on previous releases. Windows 7 is essentially Vista with bells and whistles. Fact. There's no denying they've improved a lot of things, but it's stupid to believe that this is anything majorly new. It isn't.

Eventually that pile of rubbish that they keep putting more stuff on will fall over.... and Ubuntu will be there to clean up the mess!

[Screwdriver0815]

Only 128-bit? I WANT 256 BIT DAMMIT



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

not played well ;)

Novell: 1 operating system: Suse Linux
Red Hat: 1 operating system: RHEL

the only one who does a little bit confusion: Canonical with 1 LTS and 2 intermediate releases per year.

so in general you can say: 1 vendor = 1 product in the Linuxworld, but at Microsoft you currently have 3: XP, Vista, 7. Okay, some will argue that XP is out of business, but in reality you still get it. Yesterday I got a new Laptop for work... guess which OS it has installed? Right, its XP.


Only if you're an idiot. I've not had a single virus in 10 years of Windows use. Anyone with half a brain and some common sense can make XP, for example, as tight as any Linux distro. I still use XP now. It's fine. Runs very quickly.

but this does not mean that Windows is not safe against threats. And it is no counterargument against the fact that Windows is bloated. It is.

back to topic:

I think that this is just some marketing by Microsoft. Saying "hey we are the leading force, not others!".
Remember the marketing as Vista (at this time the name was "Longhorn") was starting into development? Oh my god, so much features! Vista... errrm Longhorn should have been the most advanced OS the world has ever seen... and what was the REAL result?
The same goes with Windows 8 I think.

But anyway, 128 bit is a good idea and the news remembered myself that there is a 64 bit version of my preferred operating system available. Maybe I'll try it? Its so easy without purchasing, buying and paying... just downloading... :guitar: and if it does not fit my needs, I'll remove it... without any licensing trouble... :) :guitar:

[koshatnik]

but this does not mean that Windows is not safe against threats.

Err, yes it does. The Windows I have running is safe(r) because I made it safer. No OS is 100% safe from any malicious activity. The user maintains a systems security, not the OS.



And it is no counterargument against the fact that Windows is bloated. It is.

Bloated in respect of what? The stuff that comes with it? Uninstall it then. Ubuntu comes with a crapload of bloat too, I uninstall that as well. Most OS's and Linux distros come with too much bloat. Hav eyou ever used OSX? Thats bloat. XP is positively anorexic compared to OSX. It's really boring listening to a bunch of nubs moaning that XP is virus ridden - thats your fault, not the OS's. Read up on security.

[Screwdriver0815]

Err, yes it does. The Windows I have running is safe(r) because I made it safer. No OS is 100% safe from any malicious activity. The user maintains a systems security, not the OS.

so which viruses exist for a Linux-OS and what are they doing to the system?



Bloated in respect of what? The stuff that comes with it? Uninstall it then. Ubuntu comes with a crapload of bloat too, I uninstall that as well. Most OS's and Linux distros come with too much bloat. Hav eyou ever used OSX? Thats bloat. XP is positively anorexic compared to OSX. It's really boring listening to a bunch of nubs moaning that XP is virus ridden - thats your fault, not the OS's. Read up on security.

the system itself. When I talk about WINDOWS, guess what I mean then? Maybe Windows or some third-party mediaplayer?
Compared to Ubuntu Jaunty and the 2 releases before it, in terms of response and boot-time, Windows XP is slow and tenacious. So what is it then? For sure NOT: slick, fast and lightweight.

facts about this: my new job-Laptop is a mobile workstation (2x 2,8 GHZ processor, 3 GB RAM, 800MHZ front side bus). My private Laptop is a normal one for pivate use (2x 2 GHZ, 2 GB RAM, 533 MHZ front side bus). the job-Laptop has a freshly installed XP on it, the private one a 6 months old install of Jaunty.
When I boot them by pressing the on/off button at the same time, I already surf in the internet on the private machine, before I can log into the job-machine.
And this, although the BIOS on the private machine takes longer to be processed than on the job-machine!

but anyway, this thread is about 128 bit in windows 8 and not about how superior virusprotection is in Windows. If you want to hear/read that windows is the best OS in the world:

yes, master, Windows is great!

you are welcome ;)

[koshatnik]

so which viruses exist for a Linux-OS and what are they doing to the system?



the system itself. When I talk about WINDOWS, guess what I mean then? Maybe Windows or some third-party mediaplayer?
Compared to Ubuntu Jaunty and the 2 releases before it, in terms of response and boot-time, Windows XP is slow and tenacious. So what is it then? For sure NOT: slick, fast and lightweight.

facts about this: my new job-Laptop is a mobile workstation (2x 2,8 GHZ processor, 3 GB RAM, 800MHZ front side bus). My private Laptop is a normal one for pivate use (2x 2 GHZ, 2 GB RAM, 533 MHZ front side bus). the job-Laptop has a freshly installed XP on it, the private one a 6 months old install of Jaunty.
When I boot them by pressing the on/off button at the same time, I already surf in the internet on the private machine, before I can log into the job-machine.
And this, although the BIOS on the private machine takes longer to be processed than on the job-machine!

but anyway, this thread is about 128 bit in windows 8 and not about how superior virusprotection is in Windows. If you want to hear/read that windows is the best OS in the world:

yes, master, Windows is great!

you are welcome ;)

Err yeah. Come back when you understand what I was saying. All that ^^ just reads like gibberish.

[random turnip]

Releasing loads of new OS's is one thing, but making them decent is another...

[Screwdriver0815]

Err yeah. Come back when you understand what I was saying. All that ^^ just reads like gibberish.
ah I didn't know that you are the one who decides what is fact and what is "gibberish"... so thanks for the clearification!

[RiceMonster]

not played well ;)

Novell: 1 operating system: Suse Linux
Red Hat: 1 operating system: RHEL

O RLY?

Here's what we have going for SUSE:
SLES - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
SLED - SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop
SLERT - SUSE Linux Enterprise Real Time
SELTC - SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client
Open SUSE

Red Hat has multiple editions as well. Around the same number. Look it up.


but this does not mean that Windows is not safe against threats. And it is no counterargument against the fact that Windows is bloated. It is.

There is no counter argument against the fact that Ubuntu is bloated. It is.

[VertexPusher]

It's really boring listening to a bunch of nubs moaning that XP is virus ridden - thats your fault, not the OS's.
Some Windows applications, at least on XP, require users to log in as administrators. This is especially true for games. The "RunAs" command doesn't work for most of these. As a result, most XP users are logged in as administrators all the time. Is it their fault? I don't think so.

Windows does not have a global package management system with digitally signed repositories to keep all installed applications up to date automatically. Keeping a Windows system as secure as Linux requires manual monitoring of dozens of websites daily. Installing updates requires downloading setup files manually, checking them for viruses, and then clicking through their setup wizards. On Linux this procedure is fully automatic, and it is enabled by default so that beginners (or "nubs", as you call them) don't even need to think about it. As a result, most Windows users run outdated and vulnerable software most of the time. Is it their fault? I don't think so.


Read up on security.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Maintaining a secure Windows system is much more difficult and time-consuming because Windows was not built with security in mind.

[Ms_Angel_D]

128 bit is going to be useful how exactly? We barely have full 64bit application support, and we have many many years before the memory address are used up on 64bit.

+1

they should be working on 128 bit until 64bit is ready for everyday use by everyone like 32bit is now.

[Screwdriver0815]

O RLY?

Here's what we have going for SUSE:
SLES - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
SLED - SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop
SLERT - SUSE Linux Enterprise Real Time
SELTC - SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client
Open SUSE

Red Hat has multiple editions as well. Around the same number. Look it up.

ah and of course all these editions are there for the same purpose, right?
It is not like that, that for example SLES - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is for servers and SLED - SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is for desktops and SELTC - SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client is for thin clients? So it is the same as Windows XP which is for desktops, Windows Vista which is for desktops and Windows 7 which is - surprise! - for desktops... and all these systems are divided in "Home basic", "home premium", "ultimate"... and are all for the same purpose... I looked it up ;)




There is no counter argument against the fact that Ubuntu is bloated. It is.
of course it is. I can not find any sentence in this thread where I state that Ubuntu is not bloated. The only statement I have done is that Ubuntu is faster and more responsive than Windows XP. But of course this is wrong, because it does not fit into the world view of some people.

anyway, it is funny that there is a thread with a topic "128 bit and windows 8". Shortly after start people occur whose only purpose is to tell others how secure and superior Windows is... in a Linux-forum...

[haemulon]

Linux for what it is best at, and that is in-house business computing projects, and servers.

The Linux community doesn't even seem to understand what makes for a good desktop OS. Desktop Linux is a dream best to be abandoned.

People in the Linux community do not want to agree on any standards for the "Linux Desktop".

Microsoft presents a unified product line, consistency for the home or enterprise, Linux is just scattered all over the place, fractured, forked, chaotic, wild and messy.

What is the real Linux? pick one of the hundreds of distros? oh it's a kernel just the kernel please.

The GPL further makes Linux unappealing for real desktop development.

So instead of being jealous of Microsoft, try to figure out why Linux is destined to remain such a failure on the desktop.

[Dragonbite]

Here's what we have going for SUSE:
SLES - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
SLED - SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop
SLERT - SUSE Linux Enterprise Real Time
SELTC - SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client
Open SUSE


Don't forget SUSE Studio.. where you can "make your own Suse"

[Dragonbite]

ah and of course all these editions are there for the same purpose, right?
It is not like that, that for example SLES - SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is for servers and SLED - SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is for desktops and SELTC - SUSE Linux Enterprise Thin Client is for thin clients? So it is the same as Windows XP which is for desktops, Windows Vista which is for desktops and Windows 7 which is - surprise! - for desktops... I looked it up ;)

Don't forget Windows Mobile, Windows Automotive, Windows Azure, Windows Embedded, Windows Server, Windows Essential Business Server, Windows Small Business Server and Windows Home Server... I looked it up ;)

As for the comparison between work and home computers, I fully understand what you are saying because my work system (2-core @ 2GHz, 2GH ram) was booted up by the time my home system (Pent M @ 1.4GHz, 512MB ram) was running, downloaded and installed Kino and was capturing video.

Basically, even though the work computer is 2-4x the specs of my home system the home system was up-and-running in a fraction of the time it takes the Windows machine to be operational. That's my translation of the "gibberish".

[koshatnik]

But of course this is wrong, because it does not fit into the world view of some people.

You are just as guilty of doing that as the next person. Also, you made assumptions about forum posters that you can't possibly know.



anyway, it is funny that there is a thread with a topic "128 bit and windows 8". Shortly after start people occur whose only purpose is to tell others how secure and superior Windows is... in a Linux-forum...

Please show me in any of my posts on this thread anywhere I stated that Windows is superior or more secure than any other OS. You've made that bit up, I'm afraid. For your information, I use all three OS's; OSX, Windows XP and Linux, everyday for work and at home. All three have their shortcomings, and all three are guilty of being bloated and insecure.

In future, read what people actually post, don't make assumptions, and I'll quote you here, don't misread things "because it does not fit into the world view of some people." Substitute some people for yourself. :)

Have a nice day.

[Frak]

Some Windows applications, at least on XP, require users to log in as administrators.

Very few.


This is especially true for games.

No.


The "RunAs" command doesn't work for most of these. As a result, most XP users are logged in as administrators all the time. Is it their fault? I don't think so.

You're right, it isn't, but at the same time it isn't the fault of Microsoft that some users are a bit more curious than others.


Windows does not have a global package management system with digitally signed repositories to keep all installed applications up to date automatically.

Windows Update (windowsupdate.microsoft.com)


Keeping a Windows system as secure as Linux requires manual monitoring of dozens of websites daily.

Besides changing scope mid-explanation, no. I manage 400 computers running a plethora of different Microsoft operating systems. We get, maybe, 3 calls per day for repairs? 2 of those are usually computers not being on.

As for servers, nearly all of the exploits around are for interpreters and not the OS itself. I'm more successful attacking the PHP interpreter than I am attacking a random OS.


Installing updates requires downloading setup files manually, checking them for viruses, and then clicking through their setup wizards.

Not my fault you're paranoid. Plus, what's so hard about clicking? You don't even have to move the mouse.


On Linux this procedure is fully automatic, and it is enabled by default so that beginners (or "nubs", as you call them) don't even need to think about it.

You've clearly never installed ubuntu-restricted-extras.


As a result, most Windows users run outdated and vulnerable software most of the time. Is it their fault? I don't think so.

Can I get some statistics? Plus, most of my software auto-updates itself. I'd rather the main developers create the updates instead of being controlled by a small group. Remember that updates in Ubuntu are also discovered by people.


Unfortunately it's not that simple. Maintaining a secure Windows system is much more difficult and time-consuming because Windows was not built with security in mind.

FUD

[MasterNetra]

they never left

+1

[blur xc]

Very few.



No.



You're right, it isn't, but at the same time it isn't the fault of Microsoft that some users are a bit more curious than others.



Windows Update (http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com)



Besides changing scope mid-explanation, no. I manage 400 computers running a plethora of different Microsoft operating systems. We get, maybe, 3 calls per day for repairs? 2 of those are usually computers not being on.

As for servers, nearly all of the exploits around are for interpreters and not the OS itself. I'm more successful attacking the PHP interpreter than I am attacking a random OS.



Not my fault you're paranoid. Plus, what's so hard about clicking? You don't even have to move the mouse.



You've clearly never installed ubuntu-restricted-extras.



Can I get some statistics? Plus, most of my software auto-updates itself. I'd rather the main developers create the updates instead of being controlled by a small group. Remember that updates in Ubuntu are also discovered by people.



FUD

I think both of you are using the same kinds of semi accurate half true generalizations to support your points. It's quite silly.

BM

[Frak]

I think both of you are using the same kinds of semi accurate half true generalizations to support your points. It's quite silly.

BM
No, you're mad that I'm supporting Microsoft, and that's BAD STUFFZ. I get that a lot.

[Dimitriid]

Ubuntu forums: Now featuring Microsoft employees.

[blur xc]

No, you're mad that I'm supporting Microsoft, and that's BAD STUFFZ. I get that a lot.

Actually I am not- I'm not an MS hater. I'm feel equally toward the other guy for making the same inaccurate generalizations about Linux.

GNU/Linux has a lot of draw backs. So does MS. You weigh the two and see which matter most to you. Then you run what you like. End of story.

BM

[fela]

We can only hope of replacing MS on the desktop if MS goes under. They just have too much money to spend on marketing/propaganda/brainwashing/indoctrinating (all the same thing).

For example, yesterday I was at a film editing workshop that I go to regularly. Someone was talking about macs, I said that I don't like apple because they make uncustomizable and often pretty bad computers (matter of debate somewhere else though). So then someone else piped up 'you like microsoft then?'. I said I hate microsoft, and everyone laughed, because they thought that Apple and MS were the only two options.

Seriously, there were about six or seven people there and only one of them except me had even heard of Linux, and he hadn't used it.

It's all about publicity, and I'm afraid microsoft has the upper hand here.

But I don't really worry about it, as I don't really care what software people use as long as I can still choose what operating system I use on my computer. It only bothers me (and it bothers me alot) when hardware/software manufacturers bend over backwards for MS, and only supports that company. I want a world where everyone can choose what operating system they use and not a single one is the dominant one.

[rigao]

128 bits is more memory in atoms than the Earth can possibly give us.

64 bits is still huge. If you ever get an operating system using 64 bits of physical+virtual, you seriously need to reconsider your processes. How an earth could you use so much memory?

In computer chess, the best engine in the market actually makes good use of this 64 bits, increasing notably its strength.

[starcannon]

Check out this Ars-Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars)

Looks like MS won't be letting any new version of Windows enjoy a long life like XP did. This means Linux distros have their work cut out for them as MS looks like it will be going full steam ahead with their OS development, will Linux be able to keep up?

An exciting, competition filled few years await:popcorn:
Well this is one of the rare situations where I feel "Linux" the "kernel", needs to be understood separately from "Ubuntu, Fedora, Madriva" the "Distributions/Operating Systems".

Linux the kernel as far as I know is constantly under full steam ahead development. As far as the distributions go, they too seem to being going full steam ahead. I have an opportunity to upgrade every 6 months! How much more full steam ahead does Ubuntu have to get? Now, all that said, for me its not a competition, its what works. For me Ubuntu gets my work done quickly and efficiently. If Windows gets to the point where it can do it better, well, I'll drop Ubuntu like a hot rock.

Edit:
Oh "yay for 128bit computing"; how long has 64bit been available, and how many software developers have taken advantage of it? 128bit Kernels is just MS's way of trying to sound innovative. Only time will tell, but to date MS has only ever been a jonny come lately.

[fela]

They can address 64 bit long words. This is twice as large as 32, so they can process *in theory* twice as fast (well, really, twice as much data in the same time). However, not many applications currently use 64 bit long words.

I heard the whole Linux kernel can address 64 bit long words...but I haven't noticed twice the data throughput on 64 vs 32 bit Linux (or any OS) systems, even when the only bottleneck is (or should be) the RAM<==>CPU HyperTransport link (yes, I use AMD).

Actually, when I come to think of it I haven't really tested this...

[VertexPusher]

Very few.
I ditched Windows because it was just impossible to use without administrator privileges because many applications required them. Vista was the first Windows that required application programmers to follow some basic rules. I'll quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control):

Windows NT introduced multiple user accounts, but in practice most users continued to operate as super user administrator for their normal operations. Further, many applications tend to assume that the user is super user, and will simply not work if he or she is not.[3]

Subsequent versions of Windows and Microsoft applications have encouraged the use of non-administrator user logins, but the uptake has been slow. User Account Control is a stronger approach to do this introduced in Vista. But it is difficult to introduce new security features without breaking existing applications.
Emphasis added. If you think this description is incorrect, feel free to edit the Wikipedia article.


You're right, it isn't, but at the same time it isn't the fault of Microsoft that some users are a bit more curious than others.
It's not about curiosity. It's about applications that don't work without admin privileges because they save settings in their installation folders or in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE part of the registry.


Windows Update (http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com)
You are not paying attention. I was talking about a global package management system using digitally signed repositories to keep all installed applications up to date on a daily basis. There is no such thing on Windows.

Windows security is also jeopardized by the fact that there is no version control of installed system DLLs. For example, do a search for GDIPLUS.DLL. You will find multiple copies on your system. Some of those are managed by Windows Update, others are not (because they come bundled with 3rd party applications). This was a big issue some time ago when a critical bug was discovered that made GDIPLUS.DLL execute malicious code embedded in JPEG or PNG image files. Microsoft replaced the global copy of the DLL, but many applications remained vulnerable for quite a while. How is a normal user (i.e. a non-developer) supposed to handle this if even MS fails to address the problem?

[Regenweald]

+1

they should be working on 128 bit until 64bit is ready for everyday use by everyone like 32bit is now.

And they should work on solar energy when all the oil runs out ? ;) you don't develop new technology when the old one has run it's course, you develop better in parallel then transition.

Take light peak for instance, potentially one interface to rule them all: networking, gadgets, internal bus. If developed and adopted quickly enough, it could leapfrog firewire,E-sata,usb3 and everything else. Intel did not wait for copper bandwith to be maxed out.

[Khakilang]

They maybe back but not for long cos their OS is resource hungry. End user will not buy new hardware and throw away the old when they come out with new software. They either stick to older OS or use Linux to bring life back to the computer. Like now I am using Window XP which look more than enough for me for certain software and use Linux for web browsing.

To me the 32bit, 64bit kind of thing don't appeal to me unless you are into graphic designing, video streaming, gaming or anything with graphics. Not for average user like me. I am good with 32bit. Can watch YouTube, music, Video what more to ask.

I believe Linux is not behind Window. In fact its way ahead when you look at how fast, secure and stable they are and not a sign of virus after 2 month of usage as compare to Windows. Maybe the Windows interface look better than Linux but I am not after eye candy product. I am looking at rock solid product.

[Screwdriver0815]

To me the 32bit, 64bit kind of thing don't appeal to me unless you are into graphic designing, video streaming, gaming or anything with graphics. Not for average user like me. I am good with 32bit. Can watch YouTube, music, Video what more to ask.

to me this thread brought it to mind: "why 32 Bit, when the machine is 64-capable?"

The great thing about Linux is that you are free to choose. Assuming your machine can handle both, you just go to the download site and choose a 32 Bit or a 64 Bit version of your prefered operating system. And you can be slightly sure that both versions work the same way. With one exception: the 64 is faster.

I did it last night. I took the 64 bit version of Kubuntu Jaunty and what should I say? This thing is so fast, I never could imagine that it will do such a huge difference to the previously installed 32 bit version. But it has three things in common with the 32 bit version: it is free, it has a huge amount of software available (the same amount as for 32 bit), it is as stable as the 32 bit version.

And when there will be a (K)Ubuntu 128 bit Edition, or maybe a 256 bit edition: I will install it!!

BTW: I just checked the german Microsoft store and could not find any 64 Bit Windows 7 :confused:

[Dragonbite]

Windows does not have a global package management system with digitally signed repositories to keep all installed applications up to date automatically.

That's because while most distro's repositories include everything (kernel, environments, apps, libs, etc.) Microsoft is, under no fault of their own, limited in what THEY can provide from their own repository.

Unless companies like Adobe, Google and Apple wanted to start offering their applications in a repository with them. At which point, of course, people will begin saying that they are doing this to control/spy/steal on/from the users.

Is it Microsoft's fault because they don't offer it or is it the vendor's fault for not providing it?

And don't forget that while the Ubuntu repositories, and a lot of mainstream distros, contain most applications they still do not hold all and so I am forced to go add 3rd party repositories for certain apps. This is still a far cry better than older days of Linux if my memory serves me right.

On the other side, what paid-for application is available in a repository for Linux? Free and open repositories for all bought proprietary applications is not a working model yet.

[Frak]

That's because while most distro's repositories include everything (kernel, environments, apps, libs, etc.) Microsoft is, under no fault of their own, limited in what THEY can provide from their own repository.

Unless companies like Adobe, Google and Apple wanted to start offering their applications in a repository with them. At which point, of course, people will begin saying that they are doing this to control/spy/steal on/from the users.

Is it Microsoft's fault because they don't offer it or is it the vendor's fault for not providing it?

And don't forget that while the Ubuntu repositories, and a lot of mainstream distros, contain most applications they still do not hold all and so I am forced to go add 3rd party repositories for certain apps. This is still a far cry better than older days of Linux if my memory serves me right.

On the other side, what paid-for application is available in a repository for Linux? Free and open repositories for all bought proprietary applications is not a working model yet.
Brilliant Response, couldn't have said it better myself.

[VertexPusher]

That's because while most distro's repositories include everything (kernel, environments, apps, libs, etc.) Microsoft is, under no fault of their own, limited in what THEY can provide from their own repository.
No, they are not.

Apple is selling 3rd party commercial applications through their iPhone App Store.

Valve Corporation is selling 3rd party commercial applications (games) through their Steam content delivery system.

There's nothing that prevents Microsoft from doing the same thing.


Unless companies like Adobe, Google and Apple wanted to start offering their applications in a repository with them.
Of course they would want that, just like they want their browsers (Chrome, Safari) and plugins (Flash) to be available in Windows 7 by default.


Is it Microsoft's fault because they don't offer it or is it the vendor's fault for not providing it?
It's not the application vendor's fault because only the OS vendor can implement a global package management system and establish it as a standard for that OS. The ball is in Microsoft's court.

However, I'm not interested in assigning blame. I'm just pointing out why Linux is more secure than Windows.


Free and open repositories for all bought proprietary applications is not a working model yet.
Who said repositories must be "free and open"?

[misfitpierce]

Just like with Vista being pushed back to make more service packs to patch up XP... Same will happen and Microsoft will get behind as always.

[JerecDrak2]

BTW: I just checked the german Microsoft store and could not find any 64 Bit Windows 7 :confused:

I think that's because the Windows 7 DVDs come with both the 32-bit and 64-bit editions on them and you choose which version you want at install time.