64 bit O/S - Is it worth it?

[Paul]

and for the stuff they use it there is no need to upgrade and spend so much money with no reason
as i said. people and companys use it as is advanced windows with networking. they useto use windows 2000 before xp

[JSR]

so iam the one. windows 7 is the best windows so far
I love my XP but only coz i use it for so long and get useto it as many other people. And lets be honest! what can we compare it to?? wn95? win98 to old to compare. win Me? no comments
Only win XP is up to standards that are used this days as internet and networking. we could compare it to vista but this simply no good system. thats why microsoft decided to replace it so quick and done such big changes. is worth to mention that Win7 is not new system based on old vista. Just retuched and polised. is completly new windows witch new code. Most people dont like it as is so diferent then Xp. Understable as people dont like changes... But lets be honest! there is nothing wrong with windows 7!

I think Microsoft first hit gold with Windows 98SE. I found that nicely stable and it was a fairly lightweight operating system. It's a pity they continue with the bloat these days. XP is a good compromise, but 7 is just more bloat again. I really don't understand how we've gone from an OS that would run fine on a 66MHz computer with 16MB RAM and 200MB of disk space to one that needs a 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM, and 16GB of disk space. I mean, really, what extra functionality requires all of that extra bloat? Crazy world.

[Ian M]

and for the stuff they use it there is no need to upgrade and spend so much money with no reason
as i said. people and companys use it as is advanced windows with networking. they useto use windows 2000 before xp

When I was at RBS I remember when we changed over to XP which was done at the same time they installed new base units. It was the only time when something on the computer side was upgraded & we had no problems. Most of the time if there were any software upgrades on the system we would use it for maybe a couple of hours & then it would crash & it was always on a Wednesday for some strange reason.

Must admit it has got me thinking now about going back to XP. I do miss the pinball game that was on XP.

[Ian M]

and for the stuff they use it there is no need to upgrade and spend so much money with no reason
as i said. people and companys use it as is advanced windows with networking. they useto use windows 2000 before xp

When I was at RBS I remember when we changed over to XP which was done at the same time they installed new base units. It was the only time when something on the computer side was upgraded & we had no problems. Most of the time if there were any software upgrades on the system we would use it for maybe a couple of hours & then it would crash & it was always on a Wednesday

Must admit it has got me thinking now about going back to XP. I do miss the pinball game that was on XP.

[Ian M]

I think Microsoft first hit gold with Windows 98SE. I found that nicely stable and it was a fairly lightweight operating system. It's a pity they continue with the bloat these days. XP is a good compromise, but 7 is just more bloat again. I really don't understand how we've gone from an OS that would run fine on a 66MHz computer with 16MB RAM and 200MB of disk space to one that needs a 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM, and 16GB of disk space. I mean, really, what extra functionality requires all of that extra bloat? Crazy world.

Jonathan, it's a bit like Nero as that was brilliant at first but, now that has become so bloated too with lots of features that people just don't use. Probably employees trying to justify their large pay cheques.

[DS Designs]

Windows 7 ultimate x64 on the work computer (because it has 6gb in it)...never had a problem, it runs everything fine including Roland Versaworks. Upstairs computer also windows 7 (x32) and a netbook running XP, all networked together all working fine. Don't get me wrong, I love XP too
But in answer to your question Justin, unless it was to utilise extra memory above 3gb I would stick with a 32 bit version of whichever OS you choose.

[JSR]

Jonathan, it's a bit like Nero as that was brilliant at first but, now that has become so bloated too with lots of features that people just don't use. Probably employees trying to justify their large pay cheques.

Very true. I think it's crazy that an OS can take up less than 100MB (Linux) while Windows 7 needs 16GB. I mean, why? Perhaps if Windows wasn't quite so huge, we wouldn't need ever increasing hardware requirements and there'd be less scope for security issues.

[Paul]

I think we hav little misunderstanding here... Hardware is not getting biger an better coz the windows. Its windows getting biger and more flashy coz the hardware tgey can use. Hardware is diferent market. There is rat race between companus who will be biger and faster in shorter time. Software companys only use it as a possibility to make they programs as bog an powerfull as they want. If there still will be 16mb ram as a standard thsn we would not be able to do half of the things we can do now...

Regards to linux. Ye it is small and powerfull bit of os. Yes. It can take only 100mb and 16mb of ram to wori. But... Any one try to use it to edit short video? Or work with graphic? I do.t thibk you would like it.

[JSR]

I think we hav little misunderstanding here... Hardware is not getting biger an better coz the windows. Its windows getting biger and more flashy coz the hardware tgey can use. Hardware is diferent market. There is rat race between companus who will be biger and faster in shorter time. Software companys only use it as a possibility to make they programs as bog an powerfull as they want. If there still will be 16mb ram as a standard thsn we would not be able to do half of the things we can do now...

In the old days, the term "Wintel" was coined because of the relationship between Microsoft and Intel. The theory put forward was that each new version of Windows demanded higher hardware specs, which forced people to replace their computers with more powerful ones (typically with Intel chips). When the more powerful computers became commonplace, Windows would bloat again, requiring higher specifications, thus initiating another round of computer replacement. Given that the vast majority of people are/were locked into Windows, they had to upgrade when Microsoft stopped supporting the older versions. That forced them to upgrade the hardware to accommodate the new Windows. Microsoft and Intel were supporting each other by forcing people to upgrade their hardware and their versions of Windows.

That's why Windows is as bloated as it is now.

Regards to linux. Ye it is small and powerfull bit of os. Yes. It can take only 100mb and 16mb of ram to wori. But... Any one try to use it to edit short video? Or work with graphic? I do.t thibk you would like it.

The majority of people don't need such high specifications. The proliferation of netbooks, tablets, and smartphones proves this. If you need high-end specs then it's good that it's available, but Microsoft should be writing cleaner code. The software you buy to do the task you need should dictate the hardware specifications required to perform the task you want it to perform. But a simple operating system shouldn't require such high specifications. An "operating system" is just software that helps your system operate. It shouldn't be such a big resource bloat on its own.

An operating system should just involve the basics of letting your system operate. It could, and should, be no more resource intensive than that 100MB Linux. Anything else you want the computer to do should be handled by add-on software/drivers, not by the operating system. But, if that ever happened, we'd soon learn that we would never need to upgrade Windows at all - and that would kill Microsoft. So they continue with the bloat and the out-dated "Wintel" philosophy.

[Paul]

The majority of people don't need such high specifications. The proliferation of netbooks, tablets, and smartphones proves this. If you need high-end specs then it's good that it's available, but Microsoft should be writing cleaner code. The software you buy to do the task you need should dictate the hardware specifications required to perform the task you want it to perform. But a simple operating system shouldn't require such high specifications. An "operating system" is just software that helps your system operate. It shouldn't be such a big resource bloat on its own.

i see this in bit different light
is like a car... car is discovered for taking you froma place A to place B but this days when buying a car most people would not even think that car has not stero, air con, head rest and other unneded bits
same with windows.

Sorry guys but pc is not working station any more. it may be in many cases and bit of simple linux or old win is enough but this days pc is entertaiment machine. And i do not agree with that

But a simple operating system shouldn't require such high specifications.

linux is simple. Windows is powerfull OS that let you do most of stuff without buying extra software.
Iam not trying to protect good name of windows. only saing that EVERY wndows useto be new some point and there was this same conversation every time... sahme that you all forgot how XP was bad. no one liked it. most people sticked with 98se. so the history is making circle now again.

Guys. we have fgaster cars, trains. we landed on moon (486 dx2 would do this job) we can travel the world in couple of hours by plain etc... sowhy in this age speed of the procesors, ram and waight of the windows is such a concern?? I would understand that if 16mb ram is still a standard and procesors are not faster then 533mhz, hdd no biger then 16GB. And then windows demand half of this space and all of the ram and procesor power. but its not like that. we not getting same windows only biger! we getting new stuff that is better looking. more functions (whoever need them or not) and in this same it need more space.