5
Contributors
14
Replies
16
Views
8 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by kaninelupus
0

To the best of my knowledge Win 7 is based on the NT kernel and as such uses the NTFS file system (NT File System). Also the release candidate (RC1) was released in both x32 (32 bit system) and x64 (64 bit system) versions. This I know to be true as I am in possession of both and am running x32 on my laptop and x64 on my desktop. And in closing let me give my opinion on windows 7. I feel that Microsoft rushed Windows Vista to the manufacturers and the public way too soon. I believe that they did this in response to the release of Mac's OSX Leopard. I have been using the Win 7 beta and now the release candidate since their release. I have had virtually no problems with the beta and none with the RC1. This leads me to say that this is what Vista should have been had they not rushed it out the door.

0

gunny - do you think that 64-bit might be to hog-heavy for most users and it might fall by the wayside?

0

Personally, feel that not enough has been to develop software to take advantage of 64bit architecture. 64bit is inherently faster than32bit. The ultimate in processing is to have a TRUE parallel processing of data rather than serial. The more data that can be processed at the same time, the faster things will be. Therefore 64bit is something that needs to be fully explored and exploited. However, until everybody is using a machine that is 64bit capable the developers are forced to write for 32bit operating systems. That is why x64 operating systems have to have a x86(32bit) emulator so that people can still use 32bit apps.

0

I have installed 64 bit windows many times but I have yet to see it worth my while for everyday computing.

0

I think the 64-bit OS is going to be the big business OS. I suppose like Windows CE is to handhelds and mobiles, so 64-bit will be likened to the old mainfraimes of yesteryear.

I think NTFS is the OS of the future. The only reason, I think, that many users still like the 32-bit OS is they still like the old Games like Civilisation etc

My fav game is Age of Empires I (Rise of Rome Expansion). It still works on NTFS and if Microsoft are wise, they will they will use NTFS as the standard for the future. Why did they introduce it in the first place? Wasn't it supposed to be more secure-wise?

0

NTFS refers to the operating system "kernel". It stands for NT File System. everything from windows NT all the way through Windows 7 is based on the NT "kernel and use the NT file system. Both 32bit and 64bit. The terms 32bit and 64bit refer to the way data (you know. ones and zeros) is processed. NOT the file system architecture.

0

Gunny -
Oh well, I'm only a novice in training and I get mixed up with all that gobbledy-gook.

I use NTFS but I can't load a program designed for 64bit
If it is the same then shouldn't it load?
I've got old Win 95 programs that still work (sort of) in NTFS.
Will those old Win 95 programs and games work in 64 bit?
Will 32 bit games and programs work in 64 bit?

0

NTFS refers to the operating system "kernel"

No it doesnt. NTFS is a filesystem, not the name of the windows NT kernel.

You can use *Windows NT* (The operating system) with a multitude of filesystems (e.g FAT)

With regard to 32 bit vs 64 bit kernels, windows 8 (or whatever they call it) will definatelty be only 64 bit, as the newer versions of windows server (2008 R2 and Windows Server 7) will be 64 bit only, and microsoft like to keep the codebase the same.

0

If I was misunderstood the fault is mine. please let me clarify. When I said that NTFS refers to the kernel I meant that the file system that is used by any operating system that is based on the NT kernel is preferred to be NTFS. In other words. If you are installing Windows NT, XP, Vista, 7, the operating system is based on the NT kernel. With the exceptions of NT and XP there is no option for a FAT32 file system. Both NT and XP offer the option when installing to format the active partition into either FAT32 or NTFS file system formats. Vista and Windows 7 do not. Also, if you check you will find that XP,Vista, and Windows 7 are all available in both 32 and 64 bit operating formats. The x86 and x64 designators refer to that aspect. x86 being 32bit and x64 being 64bit respectively. As for your programs, your old Windows 95 operating system is NOT based on the NT kernel only some of them will function in an NT environment. And that environment will be 32bit. This is because (to the best of my knowledge) Windows NT and XP both are backward compatible with FAT32 and 16bit. I do know though that they will definitely not work in a 64bit environment. However, I also know from experience that some newer 32bit applications will function with Windows XP pro x64 (64bit). They will only function as fast as they did on a 32bit operating system though. Also the reason for having 32bit and 64bit OS is that not all machines have CPU's capable of running 64bit.

Not to be thought of as talking out my "you know what" here are some informative links to Wikipedia that not only agree with what I have stated but also explain it in more detail than I have the ability to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NT_kernel
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_versions_of_Windows_operating_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32_vs_64_bit

0

Wikipedia cannot be taken as total fact because it is built from user information. I would like to think that this user information is correct and true because I, too, use it for reference.

0

No it doesnt. NTFS is a filesystem, not the name of the windows NT kernel.

You can use *Windows NT* (The operating system) with a multitude of filesystems (e.g FAT)

Have to concur here... NTFS is not the NT kernel, it is a file system which, although reportedly initially implemented by MS, will support most Linux distros (can't remember what system OS X runs on, and am being too lazy at present to go look it up). Also, running NTFS has a load of advantages of FAT or FAT32, providing better file storage and data recall, more easilly resized, easier system recovery and so on. Also be aware that the NTFS of today is about 5 versions on from the original design, and will likely see further development.

@Jupiter2 - If you have a look from one of the links you yourself posted, it actually says as much

NTFS is the standard file system of Windows NT, including its later versions Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.[4]

Note FILE SYSTEM not KERNEL.

As to the x86 vs's x64 question, Win7 is being released in both... a big mistake giving OEM's a x86 release IMO, as most software/hardware devs have had MORE than enough time to cater for x64, but continuing to support x86 means this trend simply continues - a perfect example is the way Adobe has STILL not released a x64 build of Flash Player for any but Linux users.

MS has already stated though that Win7 is the end of the line for x86 where Windows is concerned.

I have installed 64 bit windows many times but I have yet to see it worth my while for everyday computing.

My question to you is, how many 32-bit apps and processes are you running in x64. Remember that Win64 is not a pure 64-bit OS, but instead runs a virtualisation layer to allow x86 apps to run. But as with any other virtualisation process, the more heavily used, the greater the performance hit.

Now due to the almighty dependency of browsers on Flash Player, this is one app where although a x64 version of both IE and FF exists, their value is limited YET, but am watching with great interest, the progress being made on HTML5, which may well and truly cut that dependency; which can only be good for all (well, all bar Adobe of course). If you're on an OEM system, like most, many of the low-level processes will likely be x86 - in my case, the hotkey support apps for the Asus are all x86, as are some of the core Windows components (for optimised compatibility with 3rd party snap-ins). In short, the more you move your app suites over to x64, the better the over-all performance lift... which is a huge lift. As to the Windows apps where the OS is using the x86 version where x64 is available such as Sidebar and WMP, Google the methods to set the x64 as default - in Vista x64 WMP saw issues arising with DivX codec's, but Win7 has all the key codec's natively, so that's no longer an issue :)

The other thing to point out with x64 Windows is that, where x86 caps RAM usage to a little short of 4GB, x64 is optimised to use 4GB as a MIN. Running less than 4GB (and I myself have not yet had the spare change to upgrade since making the transition) will limit what performance gains you'll see.

So why move to x64??

Stability - x64 is far more rock-solid
Security - harder to take out in its own right anyhow, the vast majority of malware floating around is completely incompatible with x64 architecture.
Performance - the more ppl making the move, the more software and hardware devs have to pull their finger out, or face being left behind.

Then what's next?? As MS moves completely away from Windows (MS actually has TWO alternate OS projects in R&D - Midouri and Singularity, although Midouri is being kept extremely tight under wraps), which will likely be another decade away - then we'll likely see the move to the x128 OS. But that's another story :)

0

kaninelupus - thanks for reminding me. I just took a poke at the poser, I mean poster, about the gobbledy gook stuff. Also I'm really old and hardly ever recall anything clever I say anymore.

0

Security - harder to take out in its own right anyhow, the vast majority of malware floating around is completely incompatible with x64 architecture.

Makes no difference considering the WoW32 layer lets 32 bit software run, and the system ships with both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of IE.

the progress being made on HTML5, which may well and truly cut that dependency; which can only be good for all (well, all bar Adobe of course)

Actually that has been scrapped

we'll likely see the move to the x128 OS

Do you really need more than 1 TB of memory?

0

Makes no difference considering the WoW32 layer lets 32 bit software run, and the system ships with both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of IE.

True to a point, but from what I'm digging up suggests it requires an extra level of elevation for a silent install, which has not generally been incorporated (yet) -although feel free to contradict, as if is all "fluff", would be nice to know.

Actually that has been scrapped

After reading your response, went and did some extra digging... considering FF 3.5 made a hoo-haa on HTML5 support on release. Looks like another proprietary plugin in the form of SilverLight might be the only thing left to give Adobe a much needed poke in the behind.

Do you really need more than 1 TB of memory?

Hey, I didn't say I'd be rushing out to buy a 128-bit machine in the near future (not like I'm running a super-computer in my backyard). Mind you, if OS builds don't learn to streamline along the way, who knows what resources are going to be needed in a decade's time... looking back just over a decade past to Win98, which ran on 16MB of RAM, with a fancy hard-drive at the time lucky to be more than 15-20GB (10GB more common), the progression of OS requirements today and then looking forward another ten years... gets a little scary

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.