I'm getting more and more tired of constantly 'having' to update. It's costing $$$ and often you get very little in return. I dumped Vue after finding out E-On's great upgrade tactics. EF seems to start following the same pattern now. There are some interesting features in P7, but to me they're not worth the money at the moment. Vista isn't worth it either, I'm not intending to pay over $200 for an os. Then there's the need of a new pc if I buy Vista.

I'm still using Bryce 5, Cinema4D v6, and some other older software. It does what it needs to do, so I never bothered to upgrade. Still running Win2000 on my second pc and laptop. Never cared for an upgrade at all, they both run smooth, so why change it?

I've asked myself a few simple questions.... Will Vista improve my workflow? Will Vista make my comics look better? Very doubtfull. Will Poser 7 improve my workflow? Will Poser 7 make my comics look better? Very doubtfull as well. Will Vista run my office application and desktop publishing / paint / photo applications better? Again very doubtfull. Does Vista connect to the web better? Nope..... even Windows 98 connects very well to the web.

WindowsXP will still do well for at least 5 years, most likely 10. I've only switched to XP because of Vue 5 and I still regret it at times. Can't go back now to Win98se, since Poser 6 needs XP, so I'll stick with WinXP on my main machine.

All in all I rather spent my hard earned cash on something more fun then some stupid upgrades I don't even really need.

Quote - Not at all... being a programmer doesn't really require smarts so much as a willingness to lose your social skills while thinking like a machine, substituting coffee for food, and bashing your head into a wall periodically when someone says (for the two hundred sixty seventh time), "Yeah, I know that's what I said I wanted, but that isn't what I meant I wanted, you'll have to change it."

sigh

At least computers (hardware and software) are easier than raising kids. :biggrin:

Sounds just like military service in a way especially when dealing with certain types of line officers LOL!

Quote - I go back to waiting in line to feed punch cards into a stack, then waiting in another room for someone to throw your output into a numbered bin. Fun, it was. That and "washing machine" disk drives, that could sometimes hold a whopping six megabytes of data. Those were definitely the days.

LOL, me too,  that was my first experience with computer.  Writing programs in Fortran
and putting the program on a stack of punch cards for an IBM 360.  Turning the cards
in and then coming back the next day for the paper print-out.  Then repunching
the cards that were wrong and resubmitting it. And you dare not drop the stack
of cards.

We have some ancients here. ;)  My 'mentor' who taught me programming (on a C64) used to have the 10" floppy disk and talked about not dropping the stack of punch cards - shudders.  I guess we can all be glad that we didn't have to start on vacuum tubes with plugin cables to program...

And there is one reason why you will be upgrading to Vista (or its successor) at some stage - you will no longer be able to run newer software that will be written solely 64-bit.  Glad you like C4D R6 (chuckle), but that's sort of like sticking by that old Ford-T while on the highway with minimum speed limite of 55 mph.  R7 was a big jump, R8 is about three big jumps, R9 is about ten or more big jumps, R10 is about thirty jumps ahead of R6.  To list the features and improvements that you are missing would require a book.  I don't jump on every new thing, but if someone offers me a pneumatic nailer to replace a wooden hammer, guess which one I'ma pickin'. ;)

Quote - I wonder who in his right mind would even want Vista? I really thought slavery had been banned in the US, seems like Microsoft wants the whole world to be their slaves and only do what they want them to do.

It's finally becoming clear..... Bill Gates wants to rule the world and Windows is his main weapon to do so.

Just why would anyone no buy a system because Bill Gates owns it?? If its not Bill then it would be someone else. I do plan on upgrading to Vista because of the DX 10 and better security. And there is NO other OS that allows me to do just what i want and with ease of use. I dont want a Mac because it doesnt support all of the games i play or all the programs i use,nor does any of the free OS out there.

Thinking like yours really doesnt do anything,nor is it a good reason to not buy Windows.

* Glad you like C4D R6 (chuckle), but that's sort of like sticking by that old Ford-T while on the highway with minimum speed limite of 55 mph.  R7 was a big jump, R8 is about three big jumps, R9 is about ten or more big jumps, R10 is about thirty jumps ahead of R6.  To list the features and improvements that you are missing would require a book.

*That's the thing..... I'm not missing those features at all. Besides when it comes to speed, C4D R6 is lightning fast. I've got TrueSpace 6.6 also (which is much more up to date) and it still can't beat C4D R6 when it comes to speed and features. I've looked at R10 and for what I use R6 I wouldn't even know what to do with the new features.

And there is one reason why you will be upgrading to Vista (or its successor) at some stage - you will no longer be able to run newer software that will be written solely 64-bit. 

I can't do that at the moment either, still use a 32bit machine. Also most software I do own suits me very well, I don't care about the latest game or running the newest 3D Studio Max or MS Office. So it's very unlikely I will update to any 64bit application for a long time.

Quote - I read that Micro$oft also plans on charging a fee PER MONTH, for virus protection!

This tells by itself how flawed and unsecure Vista will be.
If Vista would be secure what's the need for an anti-virus?????

Quote - That's the thing..... I'm not missing those features at all. Besides when it comes to speed, C4D R6 is lightning fast. I've got TrueSpace 6.6 also (which is much more up to date) and it still can't beat C4D R6 when it comes to speed and features. I've looked at R10 and for what I use R6 I wouldn't even know what to do with the new features.

Cinema 4D is fast, that's for sure.  As a plugin developer, I have quite a few versions installed (6, 8.3, 8, 8.2, 8.5, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 10).  If you can live without HDRI, SSS, Displacement, (and so on) and most C4D plugins, so be it. :)

Quote - can't do that at the moment either, still use a 32bit machine. Also most software I do own suits me very well, I don't care about the latest game or running the newest 3D Studio Max or MS Office. So it's very unlikely I will update to any 64bit application for a long time.

There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when you'll need software and it will only be 64-bit.  There are few 16-bit apps written these days (very, very few).  And, of course, to run a 64-bit app  you will need 64-bit hardware.  And, sorry to say, the only choice soon will be 64-bit hardware.  Look at your local computer store for AGP graphics cards - they are virtually nonexistent.  PCI graphics - get an old one on eBay, maybe.  99.9% of graphics cards are now PCI-Express - even to my relatively up-to-date detriment.

Yes, there are people out there that still use Commodore 64 computers or Windows 3.0, but they aren't exactly on the bleeding edge of, well, 1990.  Just because a computer or its software is old doen't negate its usefulness for a purpose.  You can still do ballistics and aerial targeting with a vacuum tube system - ala 1945.

My point is that at some point your hardware will fail!  This is assured.  When your motherboard/cpu/graphics/memory goes you are going to be hard-pressed to find the old hardware to replace it.  Might not be for some time - but the longer you hold out, the less likely.  Graphics is going PCI-E, harddrives are going SATA, memory is going SDDR (or whatnot), DVD is going DL or Blu-Ray, monitors are going DVI.  Within five or so years, you'll have to scavenge and dumpster-dive to get compliant hardware for your ancient computer.  Been there.

As an example, I was an avid Amiga user back in the late-80's, early 90's.  When they went under, I continued to use my A2000.  Later on, I wanted to get back into it with an A4000 towered system.  The latest OS wasn't too bad but needed heaps of third-party stuff thrown at it to make it 'modern' (internet, 32-bit video, extended memory, and so on).  Memory required some handy-man rigging (hot glue and a daughter board).  The 32-bit graphics card was a rare and nearly impossible find from a German seller.  The audio card was as rare.  It was like building a Ford Model-T - you had to find enthusiasts who collected the ancient parts and stored them and were willing to sell them for actual use.

Robert

Quote - you will no longer be able to run newer software that will be written solely 64-bit.

What about XP64 ? It works well, is very fast, very stable, can easily be stripped down (I run it with the 2K interface) and run all 64 bits application you give it to run.
I think I have a fairly descent machine (Dual Opteron 280 - total 4 cores -, 4 go memory, Geforce 7900 GTX) and though I don't plan on installing Vista because I bought this hardware for my programs, not for my OS
Don't get me wrong, Vista is probably very good for the basic user, the person who do a bit of internet, use office, play some game. It's supposed to be user friendly, fairly secure and so on.
But, when you use your computer do to more demanding stuff like rendering, programing, video editing, you usually prefer keeping the resources for the programs you run.
I don't care about the "pretty" interface, as stated earlier, I run my XP with the window classic style (I don't need big window borders eating my screen space and I prefer using my memory for something else than running the theme service). I don't care for indexing service, for restore point and so on, when I know I will install some drivers I'm not sure they will behave then I use Acronis (on CD, I don't want the services running all the time). Security, well, I have my own firewall just behind my router - a freebsd box - and and it's far better than anything you will find in Vista (of course I don't doubt a REALLY gifted hacker could go through, but I guess a really gifted hacker would have more intersting things to hack than my computer, and anyway, gifted hackers are not those I fear since they usually only "tag" your computer to show they were here, the ones I fear are the script kiddies, and those just don't have the skill to hack a freebsd box).
It's a tendency now to bloat every single program (not to mention the tendency to have programs which will load in memory when you start your computer, or start as services, weither you plan to use them in your work session or not, cf. Acrobat) It might be fine for the basic user since they usually have more processing power than they really use, but it's not too good for people with less basic needs (and if you do 3D you're among those with less basic needs).
And last but not the least, all this DRM crap, I don't use my computer to make pirate copy of DVDs or CDs, I don't have time for that and anyway I have enough music on the Jazz radios, enough movies on TV so i see no reason why I should be bugged down by background programs which will run all the time to make sure I don't do "bad" things. I wonder how long it will take before they finally understand this kind of crap only really damage the "honest" users (Not long ago, I had to answer I don't know how many question about why I had reinstalled my computer before I get a new key to reactivate a software I had bought, I'm pretty sure a "pirate" would only have needed to run a crack to get it to work again, ridiculous
So basically, I wouldn't mind Vista, but it would be nice if at the same time XP64 was still really actively maintained (meaning drivers still written and so on)
I'm aware maybe in four or five years I will have to switch to vista, but then I will probably have a dual quad core or a maybe dual octo core so It won't matter that much, if the computer is 4 times faster than what I have now, I can live with an os 20% slower :)
Ab

Quote - > Quote - I read that Micro$oft also plans on charging a fee PER MONTH, for virus protection!

This tells by itself how flawed and unsecure Vista will be.
If Vista would be secure what's the need for an anti-virus?????

I'd stick to NAV or AVG.

Nothing about unsecure (maybe flawed).  Someone mentioned going to Mac.  The more popular Macs become, the more unsecure they become.  Windows is so much at the forefront of various attacks because it is the most ubiquitous OS in the WORLD!  There are literally hundreds of millions of Windows users  - and why attack a stable (but geekishly unfriendly) OS like Unix when you can attack a well-spring of easy pickin's in Windows.  MacOS barely registers on the hacker/cracker/viral radar.  But if and when they do, is Apple in for an a-reaming.

Rule Numero Uno:

No software is safe from assault.  The best, strongest, most invested-in protection cannot be totally secure against attack ever.  Most crackers/hackers use a simple rule - if you can't beat the protection, go around it.  People don't realize this.  Even if software checks against some 1024-bit super encryption every other line of code (which would render the software useless), the cracker will just find a way around the check.  There is no way to prevent this.  They've tried hardware locks (dongles), serial numbers, keys, licenses, internet verification, PGP - it doesn't matter.  Dongles are especially hilarious in that crackers just reroute the 'hardware' dongle to a software proxy that always returns the OK for the hardware.  How pathetic.

Windows XP Pro and Server 2003 are still available for free use on any street corner in China.   And this is a company that has invested literally millions in crack prevention!  The only victims here are the poor users who are subjected to the more and more Draconian 'anti-piracy' measures.

Note that SPAM is still prevalent, DOS attacks still happen, virii still propagate, and software is still pirated - all some 20+ years since these vulnerabilities became know.  The only way to stop this stuff is to make laws and enforce them internationally (extradition and all if need be).  When the crime causes time, only then will the scum diminish.

Quote - There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when you'll need software and it will only be 64-bit.  There are few 16-bit apps written these days (very, very few).  And, of course, to run a 64-bit app  you will need 64-bit hardware.

16 bit and 32 bits apps are very different, but there's no difference between a 32 bit and a 64 bit application unless you want you access more than 4 GB or your code use any of the eight new 64 bit registers and some new opcodes.

Abraham, I'm not exactly promoting upgrading to Vista - just making some points.  I too use XP Pro 64-bit and plan on using it for as long as possible.  But at some point, M$ is going to discontinue support here and make it obvious that upgrading is an only option (hardware, drivers, software).

As I noted, the DRM is definitely crapola.  I've already experienced the "full power of the death star" with an unwanted, unintentional update to WMP 11.  This DRM is reminding me of the tactics used by the RIAA (probably instigated by them, I suspect).

Hopefully, when the time comes that Vista cannot be avoided, they do have the option to avoid the bells & whistles (like in XP).  And hopefully, enough complaints and class action suits will have prompted M$ to back down on their ridiculous DRM. :)

Quote - > Quote - There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when you'll need software and it will only be 64-bit.  There are few 16-bit apps written these days (very, very few).  And, of course, to run a 64-bit app  you will need 64-bit hardware.

16 bit and 32 bits apps are very different, but there's no difference between a 32 bit and a 64 bit application unless you want you access more than 4 GB or your code use any of the eight new 64 bit registers and some new opcodes.

Huh?

The differences are identical!  16-bit = 65536 (or 32768 byte signed) memory addressing max.  32-bit = 4GB (or 2GB signed) memory addressing max.  64-bit = 5 EB memory addressing.  It's all about address space - nothing else.

The similarity is that when 16-bit went 32-bit, 16-bit addressing support was retained just as when 32-bit has gone 64-bit, 32-bit addressing has been retained.

Just like the old switchover, 32-bit apps could not be run on old 16-bit computers.  Same for 64-bit apps.  You can't run a 64-bit app on 32-bit hardware.  When software is compiled for 64-bit memory addressing, I want to hear about you running it on your 32-bit computer - yeah...okay....

Quote - No software is safe from assault.  The best, strongest, most invested-in protection cannot be totally secure against attack ever.

100% secure is impossible, but you can achieve very high levels of security.
Rule #1
No remote execution of code is allowed.

With only folowing this rule:

• No matter which site do you visit there's no way to a virus or spy be installed in your computer.
• No way to a hacker can enter your computer through the internet.
• No virus can be installed by a received email.

But if this rule is followed:

• No automatic upgrades to your computer.
• No way to Micro$oft modify your computer online.
• No activeX.
• No way for companies install toolbars, search engines and propaganda popups into your computer.

The only way to have your computer infected is to you by yourself run an infected executable file, downloading a virus is innofensive, you must execute it !!!
As remote code execution is not allowed, the only way to execute a virus is by your own hands, of course you can be cheated by an email.
"This is funny, click here: funny.exe"  (no hidden extensions allowed, allways appear .exe and exe is the only executable allowed (no .scr, .pif))
After clicking on "funny.exe" will appear a message: "do you want to install"/run this program?"
If you answer yes, the problem is yours, security has it limit and the limit is stupidity.

True if we're talking internet connection.  But this doesn't consider cracks (hey, people like free software) and hacks (if on the internet at any length).  Cracked software is an excellent means to introduce viruses, adware, zombies.  Hackers are not waiting for a user to invite them in, they are attacking exploits to break down the door.  Users who are aware of this can usually safely guard against it (firewalls and such).  But that doesn't negate the potential. Security flaws in HTML, FTP, Email, and other servers and hardware connections are quickly exploited.  And that doesn't even consider open ports (which should be protected by a good firewall).

We are all aware of the IE buffer overrun exploit that allowed malicious code to be run if visiting a website or by some other means.  Didn't always require a hapless user clicking an email link - just needed to be unfortunate enough to happen upon the site somehow.

For instance, I was privy to a nice (but short-lived) DOS attack on my website recently.  Basically, the script-kiddie was repeatedly downloading a set of large zips files off my site to bring down the site otherwise.  Not much to do about that - except ban the IP address and hope it wasn't a zombie attack (wherein the IP could easily be switched).  Even major corporations require some hefty layering, real-time diagnostic software, and well-versed system admins to avoid these - hopefully.

As you note, to cause the damage, one must execute the code.  Any code that is executed is vulnerable to some form of vulnerability.  All code is executed (or it's sort of useless).  Yes, most times this is easily avoided by following simple rules - don't open unsolicited email, never click on email links, don't use cracked software, keep software updated especially when the udpates fix vulnerabilities, run AV, run firewalls, run Ad-blockers, run Pop-up blockers, etc..  But most users are not very savvy.

Then there is the worst of all - root-kit type software that is unexpected, uncontrollable, automatic, while also being a probable pathway for exploits.  Sony paid dearly (thankfully) for such an excursion.  This still requires a user to unintentionally provide an avenue for exploits (software, internet) - yet still very dangerous potential.

The problem is that the internet is ubiquitous.  I couldn't operate without an internet connection.  My business depends upon it (both for serving as well as connnectivity for communal response and informational/data resources).  And that ubiquity is OBVIOUSLY exploited by scum who know that most people are not going to turn off their computer every time they go to get a cup of coffee or go to sleep.  These connections are becoming more permanent and that makes for a nice continuous stream of possibilities for them.  Even then, my mail and dns servers are local - always privy to attack.  If a user gets past the hardware firewall into one of these, they have free-reign.  It has happened to some extent.

Quote - The similarity is that when 16-bit went 32-bit, 16-bit addressing support was retained just as when 32-bit has gone 64-bit, 32-bit addressing has been retained.

The meaning of instructions in 16 bit and 32 bit is not the same, for running a 16 bit application in a 32 bit machine you have to switch the CPU to the protected mode (16 bit).
You can still run 16 bit apps in 64 bit machines switching to the protected mode.

The meaning of instructions in 32 bit and 64 bit is the same, you can run a 32 bit application in a 64 bit machine in 64 bit mode without any need to changing the CPU mode.
There are only some few exception for codes written in an unusual way (manipulation of SS, ES, DS segment registors) that need the CPU to be switched to the 32 bit mode.

Quote - Just like the old switchover, 32-bit apps could not be run on old 16-bit computers.  Same for 64-bit apps.  You can't run a 64-bit app on 32-bit hardware.  When software is compiled for 64-bit memory addressing, I want to hear about you running it on your 32-bit computer - yeah...okay....

32 bit applications don't run in a 16 bit machines, with 80386 were added a lot of new instructions to the old 16 bit CPUs, this new instructions don't exist in 16 bit.
Many 64 bit application can run in 32 bit machines, the instructions are the same, but if the 64 bit application use some newer instructions of CPU64 then the app will not run in 32 bit machines.
All will depend how you write the code, you can write a code that will work in any 32 or 64 bit machine at its full performance.

The difference between 32 and 64 bit CPU is very small, mainly the difference is that the addressing was extended from 32 bit to 64 bit. The high order 32 bits are considered zero unless overrided by a prefix instruction (new) or explicited by a new instruction.
As the 32 bit code haven't this new instructions the 64 bit CPU treats the higher 32 bit of the address as zero so it run without any problem in the lower 4 GB of memory.
If a 64 bit code doesn't use the new instructions  then the higher 32 bits of the address is always zero and will run without any problem in 32 bit machines.

I have a 64 bit processor and PCI-E 16 video card and I know in time I will need a 64-bit OS. I just want to see how vista shakes out first.  I want a 64-bit OS I spent the time building a machine for 64-bit apps. However, when it come to choosing an OS all I become is confused. Everybody says their rig and the OS they are using is the best so it makes my head swim. I'm not a software savvy person I understand hardware but I do know enough about software that I don't want to run a resource hog with unneeded tripe and unnecessary eye candy. Outside of a virus and firewall running in a separate process I don't see the need to have a bunch of processes running behind the scenes. Some say this is a trademark of M$, others say it's no big deal and that those who say this about M$ are over stating the facts.

All I want is a nice, clean and efficient OS without a bunch of BS to mesmerize me like a tribe of indigenous people seeing shiny trinkets for the first time. If an OS has to have these things to sell then one must question the developers. Why is it a hard thing to ask for? A clean, lean, efficient simply written OS? If M$ is in fact putting other things into Vista or any of their other OS what is the purpose? I recall the time I was told to get Norton, "Norton is the bomb Chief" it wasn't for me all I saw was in intrusive app that wound it's tentacles around everything in my box. I also don't have the cash laying around like some of these big shots to dump into a system to run all the bloated software recommended by said software giants. Kids in college will do that to you bank account LOL!

So in a nut shell, what is one suppose to do when choosing an OS? Whom do you listen to? That's why I wait and see. As far as Vista is concerned all I have heard is the negative about drivers not being able to handle most of the hardware out now or not being able to run certain apps. Vista is intrusive, Vista is full of M$ spyware, etc, etc. So for me I guess  waiting is key.

@Sealtm2 : If you want to remain in the Windows world, your choice will be fairly limited : XP64 or Vista 64.
If you're not really interested I would say, XP64 is probably the best choice (it's a very stable OS, very similar to XP but in fact based on 2003 Server. You don't have more service running than on a standard XP and you can deactivate those you don't need as easily. Personally, I will stick with it as long as possible).
The only inconvenient you might encounter with XP 64 is the fact that some hardware won't work and no one will bother writing drivers for them (it, not a concern with current hardware since all new hardware come with an XP64 driver, it shouldn't be a concern with future hardware either, at least for a couple of years but it will wastly depends on the success of Vista) XP 64 is not a mainstream OS and some company just don't bother writing drivers for it (I had this problem with a Canon 3200 scanner for exemple) This will probably not be the case with Vista since it will be the main Windows OS for a while
To sum up : my OS of choice XP 64 but knowing there might be some driver problem in the future if Vista is very successful and if the hardware manufacturers start to think making XP 64 drivers isn't worth the money

Ab

In order to run 32 bit code (under a 64 bit operating system), you have to actually switch the processor into 32 bit mode while that process is running.  Windows (XP-64 and Vista 64 bit) handle this automatically, switching to the proper processor mode when switching to another process and then switching back.

It's the same thing with running 16 bit processes under 32 bit windows; the operating system handles all the necessary mode switches automatically.  Probably the main reason that 64 bit windows can't handle 16 bit code is probably because the added complexity it would entail isn't worth it, considering that 16 bit is about as obsolete as it gets.

The advantage to 64 bits over 32 bits is the greatly increased address space.  Under 32 bits, a process is limited to 2 GB of memory (3GB with the proper kernel switches and the application relinked to work with it), no matter how much RAM you have installed.  It doesn't even matter how much swap space you have or are willing to use, you can only address 4GB with a 32 bit pointer, and the kernel takes up 2GB of that.

The x86-64 also adds an additional 8 registers (available only in 64 bit mode) to an architecture that is sorely lacking in registers.  (Which even so still only gives it half the architectural registers that most RISC architectures have).

Quote - > Quote - Not at all... being a programmer doesn't really require smarts so much as a willingness to lose your social skills while thinking like a machine, substituting coffee for food, and bashing your head into a wall periodically when someone says (for the two hundred sixty seventh time), "Yeah, I know that's what I said I wanted, but that isn't what I meant I wanted, you'll have to change it."

sigh

At least computers (hardware and software) are easier than raising kids. :biggrin:

Sounds just like military service in a way especially when dealing with certain types of line officers LOL!

Hey, you can combine the two and become a programmer working for a defense contractor. I'm currently considering designing a game called "Milestones and MIL-STDs", the exciting boardgame of the DoD Aquisitions Process.

Quote - > Quote - I go back to waiting in line to feed punch cards into a stack, then waiting in another room for someone to throw your output into a numbered bin. Fun, it was. That and "washing machine" disk drives, that could sometimes hold a whopping six megabytes of data. Those were definitely the days.

LOL, me too,  that was my first experience with computer.  Writing programs in Fortran
and putting the program on a stack of punch cards for an IBM 360.  Turning the cards
in and then coming back the next day for the paper print-out.  Then repunching
the cards that were wrong and resubmitting it. And you dare not drop the stack
of cards.

When I was an undergrad, one of the computer rooms was in the same building as where the Cornell Film Series showed films every night -- I used to drop off the job at 8, watch the movie, and get the printout afterwards. Upson Hall was next to the (old) baseball diamond, so in the spring I would often watch the baseball team while waiting for my printouts.

[{quote]No software is safe from assault.  The best, strongest, most invested-in protection cannot be totally secure against attack ever.
100% secure is impossible, but you can achieve very high levels of security.
Rule #1
No remote execution of code is allowed.

The only way to have your computer infected is to you by yourself run an infected executable file, downloading a virus is innofensive, you must execute it !!!
 
There have been cases of published software, by major vendors, having viruses. There are also other attacks (such as buffer-overflow attacks) which do not require the user to initiate the remote execution. Also, the level of lock-down required to avoid all possible methods of insertion of viruses is sufficiently draconian that it is infeasable for most home users.

Quote - My point is that at some point your hardware will fail!  This is assured.  When your motherboard/cpu/graphics/memory goes you are going to be hard-pressed to find the old hardware to replace it.  Might not be for some time - but the longer you hold out, the less likely.  Graphics is going PCI-E, harddrives are going SATA, memory is going SDDR (or whatnot), DVD is going DL or Blu-Ray, monitors are going DVI.  Within five or so years, you'll have to scavenge and dumpster-dive to get compliant hardware for your ancient computer.  Been there.

The Airforce has had to do this to replace radiation-hardened 386 chips.

Quote - All I want is a nice, clean and efficient OS without a bunch of BS to mesmerize me like a tribe of indigenous people seeing shiny trinkets for the first time. If an OS has to have these things to sell then one must question the developers. Why is it a hard thing to ask for? A clean, lean, efficient simply written OS?

Well, you have Linux. You have different versions of Linux, some fast and other slow.
You have also the advantage to compile the kernel to match your hardware making it a fast and very efficient operational system.

Quote - In order to run 32 bit code (under a 64 bit operating system), you have to actually switch the processor into 32 bit mode while that process is running.

The 32 bit mode is a mode where 100% of the 32 bit applications can run on a 64 bit CPU, but you also can run a 32 code in the 64 bit mode or running under 32 bit mode you can access more than 4 GB of memory

Quote -   Windows (XP-64 and Vista 64 bit) handle this automatically, switching to the proper processor mode when switching to another process and then switching back.

This thing I have really doubts. I doubt that Vista or XP64 runs under 64 bit mode, , probably repeating the story of the past of Windows 3.1 and 32 bits, Vista64 or XP64 is only running in 32 bit mode accessing over 4 GB of memory.
In 64 bit mode is not used any more segmentation, it use a linear addressing. This destroys all the Windows structure and all the Windows code must be rewriten. I doubt very much that Micro$oft did this work, probably they patched only some parts of the 32 bit Windows making it access more than 4 GB, and of course using only 32 bit mode.
I suppose that in 2012 Windows will be really 64 bit and anot a patched 32 bit sold as it was 64 bit.
You know very well the story, a full 32 bit Windows 98 depending on DOS call of it kernel, not old 16 bit Windows calls, something even much older that this!!!, the old 8086 with only 1 MB memory.

It's the same thing with running 16 bit processes under 32 bit windows; the operating system handles all the necessary mode switches automatically.  Probably the main reason that 64 bit windows can't handle 16 bit code is probably because the added complexity it would entail isn't worth it, considering that 16 bit is about as obsolete as it gets.

Quote - It's the same thing with running 16 bit processes under 32 bit windows; the operating system handles all the necessary mode switches automatically.  Probably the main reason that 64 bit windows can't handle 16 bit code is probably because the added complexity it would entail isn't worth it, considering that 16 bit is about as obsolete as it gets.

64 bit CPU can switch to 16 bit mode or even DOS mode, Microsoft only want to force people that still are using Windows 3.1 or DOS applications to trash these applications and purchase a new fresh and if possible MIcrosoft product.
There are many DOS and Windows 3.1 applications that still are used and there's no need to upgrade them, they are working fine, fulfill their purpouse and are integrated into standart procedures.

Quote - There have been cases of published software, by major vendors, having viruses. There are also other attacks (such as buffer-overflow attacks) which do not require the user to initiate the remote execution. Also, the level of lock-down required to avoid all possible methods of insertion of viruses is sufficiently draconian that it is infeasable for most home users.

There is a lot of mythology, urban legends, propaganda and the real story is never published.
You must look at the common and usual causes of the virus infection and not theorical and hypothetical causes.
Always exist the possibility that a purchased CD of some company has been infected by a virus, but how much is the probability to happen????
The probability to happen is so remote that is very more probable to your computer be destroyed by a thunder or fire than by an infected published software purchased in a legal way.
The buffer underflows are very dubvious and this story was never explained. With all my professional experience I am not able to understand how a buffer underflow or overflow, beside causing malfunction to the program, can install a virus. The real story must be very different.
Bugs exist, but bugs are not the cause of virus infection of millions of users.
You must look at the source of millions of infections and not some cause that only happens one in a million.
You vist a site and your computer is infected and of course only if you use IE, it's not a bug of IE, it's a feature of IE.
Microsoft have created all the tools needed for companies and Microsoft itself install any kind of spywares into your computer using IE. You don't get a spyware without your knowledge using Firefox, no matter of all the bugs reported of Firefox. Spyware without your knowledge only happens with IE, it's not a bug, it's a feature!
Of course, if a company has the tools to install a spyware into your computer, any one that hacks a site or create a malicious site is able to install a virus in your computer instead of a spyware.
Spyware and virusware are almost the same!!!
Some people can get his computer infected after clicking on an attachment of a received email "blondejoke.exe", but most of the people get infected by only receiving and email through Outlook, you don't need to click on "blondejoke.exe", Outlook does this task for you without your knowledge!
These are not bugs, these are features. Once some virus attacked millions and more millions using these "features" then appears the typical story, a bug was found and a security patch is released, you must install the patch, but what the patch does is not remove an inexistent bug, the patch only removes a feature and more probably only change how the feature must be used, so this existent virus cannot attack your computer, but a new virus will be able to do it using the new way of using the same feature and the story repeats one more time and another patch and it goes forever......

Tell me, if Microsoft is able to change or update your Windows and Vista will be the master of watching what you are doing and changing your software, why some another site cannot do the same, watch what you are doing and install any spyware, virus, bank account tracking software, trojan. The malefic site only need to cheat your computer making believe that is speaking with Microsoft itself and the gates of Hell are open.
It's not a bug, it's a feature......

Uhm, segmentation was the memory model used in Win3.x (and Mac OS 9 and lower). Win32 uses paging, as do Linux, Mac OSX, WinXP 64 and Vista.
So the claim that going from 32 bit to 64 bit wasn't all that difficult is just plain true. There's no reason to believe that Vista and XP64 are not fully 64 bit - it is actually more work to create a scheme to allow a 32 bit system to address more than 4 GB than to port it to full 64 bit.

Windows 95, 98 and Millenium were NOT true 32 bit operating systems. Part of their core still depended on the 16 bit segmentation scheme, other parts used 32 bit paging.

Windows 2000, XP and later are all based on the NT 3.51 system, which is not derived from DOS (as many Windows haters believe) but from Vax VMS. NT 3.51 has been 32 bit paging from its very start..

So about rewriting the segmentation code: it has already been done. Many years ago.

*The possibility exists that a purchased CD of some software company has been infected by a virus, but how much is the probability of it to happen?

*I don't have statistics, but it sure happened to me! Long time ago, DOS age, PC Tools 6.1. The original disk contained a very nasty boot sector virus.

Why that Microsoft hatred? They're a very rich company, sure. Why are they rich? Why is Windows the most used operating system by far?
Because MS made some very clever marketing moves in the past. Because DOS and later Windows were the only viable operating systems for quite some time (Mac being far too expensive, Linux being far too user unfriendly, and Unix being both too expensive AND too user unfriendly).

Some people seem to believe that everything that's worng in the software world should be blamed on Microsoft. Wake up! Ever heard why Oracle bought the InnoDB database engine? Not because they needed a transactional storage engine - their own storage engine is better than InnoDB. No, they wanted to blow MySQL out of the water by denying it a transactional engine - MySQL was eating into their profit. 
And what did Microsoft do? They released MSDE, a free database engine, as a competitor to MySQL. Better in some regards (fully ANSI-92 compliant, fast transactional engine), less in others (not cross-platform, database size limited to 2 GB, no clustering).
But of course, it's Micosoft, so it's evil. And what Oracle did is not evil, because Oracle is not Microsoft.
(By the way, that InnoDB move bit Oracle on the ass in a big way)

Security? Why is Linux more secure than Windows? The average Linux user is far more computer savvy than the average Windows user, and knows how to protect his system and prevent malware from coming in.
Script kiddies know this. Their target is the unknowing Windows user - there's loads of unknowing Windows users - to maximize the impact of their vandalism. About the same goes for the Mac - there are too few Macs around to be an interesting target for the Internet hooligans. If and when the popularity of Mac or Linux grows to the current level of popularity of Windows, those systems WILL be interesting targets, and I am sure the security of those systems will be breached on a regular basis. 

Not supporting OpenGL out of the box is a bad move however. And I'm fairly sure MS will fix that soon. Many popular games are developed as cross-platform, and those games invariably use OpenGL - and an operating system that can't run those games is not going to sell very well. 

Ah well. I run XP Pro 64 bit, and I like it. Pretty secure too, my logs tell me that I get an automated attack on my IP address about once a week. Nothing has ever gotten through.

Quote - So about rewriting the segmentation code: it has already been done. Many years ago.

Segmentation is used, SS, DS, ES, FS and GS segments are used, in 32 bit the segments are not used in the same way in the 16 bit mode.
In 16 bit mode the segment register was added shifted to the 16 bit address creating a 32 bit address.
In 32 bit the segments are not used for the generation of the address, they are used as a pointer for the table descriptors that stores the base address and size of the memory block pointed by the segment register.
In 64 bit there's not segment descriptor table, the segments CS, DS, SS, and ES are ignored and assumed to have the value zero.
Probably as a favour to Microsoft, AMD and Intel made FS and GS segments still usable, without them would be impossible to Windows launch any program!!!!!

If you debug any 32 bits Windows code you will find that the value of CS (code segment), SS (stack segemnt) and DS (data segment) are different.
If you trace your program when it performs a function call to a Window's DLL the value or CS, SS and DS are different and they change many times within the Windows fuction call processing.
Inside Windows DLL calls of the form CALL SEGMENT:ADDRESS or absolute gotos JMP SEGMENT:ADDRESS are very used.
Segments are used in Windows 32 and how often it are used!!!

That's because, well, code, stack, and data are usually, well, 'segmented'.  This isn't 'segmented memory', this is segmented static program execution space.  The code sections are placed into their own memory areas.  A developer doesn't actually have to do this - you can put the code and data segments together for instance - but the stack is usually kept separate as it also maintained by the system pointer (activation frame of the running code).  See "Memory as a Programming Concept in C and C++", pp. 14-16).

You are confusing code segments with memory segmentation - these are two different things.  One allows code to be loaded into memory so as to 'appear' contiguous, the other allows limited memory address capability to be fooled into thinking it can address more (with those segment registers).

I was talking about virtual memory schemes: segmentation schemes vs paging schemes.
In the segmentation schemes used by Windows 3.x and Mac OS 9 and lower, the onus of marking a segment as "code" or "data" fell to the programmer, allowing for some devious loopholes - a programmer could mark code as data or the other way around. Made for a lot of "quick and VERY dirty" applications, including malware. 
Combined with the cooperative multitasking scheme this made for an inherently unstable and unsafe OS. Windows 16 bit suffered heavily from this. Mac OS 9 and lower too, to a lesser degree, since Apple has far more control over Mac software than Microsoft does over Windows software.
The paging virtual memory scheme (hardware supported since the 386 CPU - and I think the Motorola 68030) takes this responsibility away from the programmer. The hardware also does the job of mapping the virtual address to the physical address, the OS has nothing to do with it.
Only the page file is handled by the OS. Linux puts the page file on a separate partition, which is a better solution than the Windows one (which wants to put the page file on the system drive. You can change the location of the page file though). 

Quote - I find it very interesting how everyone is already slating Vista, saying 'XP works fine, so I won't upgrade!'

Well, I have to say - XP is the best, most stable operating system I've used so far, so I can't argue with anyone who says they won't upgrade to a 'buggy', needless OS designed to line the pockets of Bill Gates.

However, don't forget we all said the same about Windows XP when I came out!!!

How wrong we were!

Apart from the security.  That was naff.

I totally agree.  I got XP because I'm self employed and somehow got a copy of it because of that when MS was handing out copies for like $35.00 to business folks that had the link to the page where this offer was being offered.  Who could refuse that?  Not I so Win2000 Pro was taken to work were it is the OS there now and XP Pro became my OS at home.  Don't regret that move one bit.  It's a legal copy as I called MS to make sure it was on the up and up.  I've never been so happy with an OS. 

I have no intention in switching platforms but now that MAC can run on an Intel platform that's no excuse but the fact that there are so many little apps that I use on a regular basis that the MAC platform does not have (like Irfanview) I just assume stay with XP Pro and keep watching the progress of Vista. 

I would be lying if I said I wasn't interested but I would be a fool to jump on board this early in the game too.  I have just built myself a new box in December and while it's supposedly Vista compatible I will wait for the next urge to build a another system for myself and THEN Vista will hopefully have it's bugs worked out and I'll go for it.  Until then?  XP Pro works just fine for me with nary a problem to bitch about. 

Quote - Not supporting OpenGL out of the box is a bad move however. And I'm fairly sure MS will fix that soon. Many popular games are developed as cross-platform, and those games invariably use OpenGL - and an operating system that can't run those games is not going to sell very well.

I agree with most of what you said, but i will just point out that MS froze OpenGL support long back. The last OpenGL lib MS released is at v1.1. Everything after that (current OGL version is at 2.x) is not from MS, but from display card chip vendors, mainly nVIDIA and ATI. This is very different from DX, where MS provide the libs and the display cards support those libs... In OGL's case, the card vendors have to code and provide the libs themselves. This is true even for XP.

This is also the main reason why there are so many issues with pro OGL apps and some cards (like ATI) because they implement the OGL standard differently then nVIDIA and nVIDIA having more clout in the pro market with its quadro cards has more support from CG app vendors. This is again very different from DX. In a DX app/game, no matter what card you use as long as it supports a particular version of DX, you will get all the features of that DX version. There may be performance differences of course, but never feature differences. In OGL however it is common to have some cards supporting some features while others support others (the so called OGL extensions) All due to there not being one standard implementation of OGL like there is for DX.

One benefit of this though is that MS cant stop OGL from being supported under Vista, since they have nothing to do with it in the first place. As long as nVIDIA or ATI release drivers that support OGL, games using it will run, regardless of OS.

More I read, more bigger are my doubts if XP64 or Vista64 runs under 64 bit mode.
FACT #1
All the Wndows DLL function calls are performed by means of the instruction CALL SEGMENT:ADDRESS
FACT #2
The instruction CALL SEGMENT:ADDRESS is invalid in 64 bit mode.
CONSEQUENCE #1
Windows 32 bit applications cannot run under 64 bit mode.
Ok, there's no problem, CPU64 has a 32 bit compatible mode to run 32 bits apps.
Until now is fine, it's only a question to switch on a task basis between 32 and 64 bits modes.
CONSEQUENCE #2
The Windows DLL functions calls for a 64 bits application cannot be done in the same way as function calls from a 32 bits application.
Now it gets complicated, you must have 32bit DLLs and the same DLL in 64 bit version.
Not only you must have all the DLLs duplicated, you must have all the VXD and SYS (rootkit) duplicated!!!!
SOLUTION #1
Don't allow to XP64 or Vista64 run 32 bit applications, only you can use for 64 bits apps.
Also MIcrosoft has to create from zero all the needed DLLs and components, no way to patch an old 32 bit DLL for the job.
SOLUTION #2
Duplicate all the Windows, now you must have two Windows, one 32 bit and one 64 bit running at the same time with the consequent inneficiency and slowness.
The same problem as #1, all 64 bits DLLs must be created.
SOLUTION #3
No 32 bit DLLs only 64 bit as solution #1 with the same problems.
The DLLs will run under 64 bit mode, any function call from a 32 bit applications will be traped by call gates or invalid opcodes faults and then the request translated to the correct 64 bit form that can be handed by the 64 bit DLL.
The result will be a very slow 32 bit application.
SOLUTION #4
Don't do anything or almost anything, let the 32 bit DLL continue to exist, create some new function calls that allow 64 bit pointers to retrieve memory bigger than 4 GB, run all in 32 bit compatible mode with extended memory range and tell the users that is Windows 64.
If they did the same with Windows 3.1 with 32 bit mode, the story continued in a less degree with Win95 and Win98. Only Windows 2000 become really a 32 bit Windows, so why cannot do the same with XP64 or Vista64???

gad..I remember loading punch cards in a sorter back in the 80s...;) I learned enough programming (Cobol, RPG II [the language, not the rocket launcher..;], Assembler) to learn I never want to be a programmer..;) All it's given me is lost hours of my life, and rotten spelling (ask an old programmer about spelling sometimes..;)

I'd have to check my notes (been studying about 5 different OS's at work, so I get confused, as they say in Sin City..;), but I seem to remember 64-bit OS's don't work with 16 bit code.

I have Win 2k on my machine, works like a champ, so far..;) Can't use my old games (Duke Nukem 3, Descent 1&2, Heretic, etc), but on the other hand, I can't load the latest version of Daz Studio (missing C++ files, dlls, etc, but I hardly expect any sympathy in this forum..;) So it looks like I'm in the middle.

I'll have to upgrade eventually (my system's about 3 years old), but I'll wait until the last possible moment..;)

Quote - but I seem to remember 64-bit OS's don't work with 16 bit code.

With mainframes the story is rather different, the old ferrite core memory IBM /360 was a 64 bit machine.
Burroughs machines were 48 bit and the machine language and instructions was Algol and not Assembler!. Compatibility between different models was on base on the source code and not the executable code. For running an application you have to compile, link and run all in a batch process, even you assigned all the resources that will be used by your application.
The question of 16 bit or 32 or 64 bit code is the result of the evolution of microprocessors that started with 4 bits and now we have 64 bit, 40 years after the mainframes had it!!
As the executable code is all not the same for any new microprocessor and the compabibilty is not based on source code, secret, profit, copyrights, even more profits, the only way to a new processor or OS to be compatible with old applications, the hardware needs some switching code mechanism and the OS must support this.
Without the compatibilty the sales of new computers would be very limited. Nobody would purchase a new computer if all the software that he has cannot run on it. It's not only a question of all the money needed to purchase all the new required software, many times the software that you have doesn't exist a newer version for a newer hardware.
Imagine if Poser7 would not be able to run on 64 bit  computers, you would never have purchased an AMD64 or Intel64 until the day where Poser 8 would be released, and who knows when it will be, neither you don't know when the first patch of Poser7 will be!

http://www.ubuntu.com/

My husband has assured me that if I switched from XP to Ubuntu, he will help me get everything I use in Windows functioning in Linux.

I tell you, it's looking better and better every day.

Need more companies to take on MS for an OS. More competitions, less costs.

Wow .... what an interesting thread.

I'm of the "if it ain't broke, I'm not going to try to fix it, much less buy a new one" school of thought.

All my programs are running just fine on my current system (XP), so I will not be switching to Vista (or whatever comes after Vista) until that situation changes.

By then, I hope all the bugs are worked out and everything I need to run ... runs.

As for Mac?  No thanks .... not that it's not a lovely machine and all, but I'm the sort of person that likes to build my machines from parts.  I like to pick out my case, add a ton of RAM and storage and overclock the bugger.  Everytime I talk to someone at the Apple Store (where I go for my iPod stuff), they point out that you can't just go purchase "parts" and start modding a Mac.

Now, if there ever change that approach .... I might just think about it.

Sigh...  I know it's just a dream and it will never, ever happen... but OH for a Linux version of Poser!

It's the only piece of software that keeps me tied to Microsoft. I'm running Ubuntu Linux on my other machines, and loving it.

Quote - I saw an article today that recommended not upgrading, but only using vista on a new machine that comes with it already installed. the price seems to range from $99 u.s. to $400 or more, for various versions.

My new computer mistakingly arrived with Vista installed instead of XP Pro.  I don't like it at all!  It's slow and  sluggish and seems to pause. Not to mention all of those stupid pop up windows asking for permission to open program message windows.  Very annoying.  I will be reinstalling XP Pro in the next day or two.

From everything I've read, I don't think I'll be upgrading any of the machines here. When they are replaced, I supposed they'll come with Vista, but that won't be happening very soon. Unfortunately. My wife and one of my daughters have some truly ancient computers. Oh, well.

It doesn't matter how much Vista is bad, people will "upgrade" their computer to Vista, have their live even worst than with XP, will need to upgrade their computer to something better because their quad core is too slow, have Poser's rendering crash (if able to start Poser) and though, blame E-Frontier, have their computer data destroyed with Virus and blame the hackers, their SATA driver go to space and blame the HD fabricant, pay monthly the anti-virus service to Microsoft and blame the hackers again, try to play some game and then blame the video card fabricant and ..........
But in the end, all they will say "Vista is the best Windows ever made and I never had any problem with Vista"

Why do you think that Billy Gates is so rich?, he is a genius for making money!!!!!

I'm beginning to think that Microsoft are starting to operate in similar way to AOL several years ago. Back in the day, an AOL account didn't connect you to the internet: it connected you to AOL. You saw the sites that AOL allowed you to see, and it was all very safe and secure - but your access to the wealth of knowledge that the internet presented was severely restricted. It was popular because it was aimed at a user base of people who didn't know a lot about computers, which at the time was most people. Microsoft are kind of like that now. A Vista user will use Windows Firewall to regulate internet traffic (and thus, potentially, what they can and can't see), Windows AntiVirus subscription & Windows Defender for spyware (as opposed to 3rd party apps - so much for the Internet Explorer anti-trust case), User Protection to regulate which executables they can run, and so on. DRM (coupled with hardware protection - and I thought Palladium had been dropped) will decide what DVDs, CDs, MP3s, etc. you are allowed to enjoy. In short, Microsoft are catering to a group who want to be mollycuddled, who don't want to have to think about security issues and would much rather that Microsoft handle all of that hassle (the kind of lazy attitude, incidently, that instantly makes your computer infinitely more vulnerable). Microsoft want Vista users to live in a Microsoft world, where everything that they do - gaming, web browsing, multimedia, etc. - is done through Microsoft means and under Microsoft control. The difference I see with AOL is that AOL were a genuine innovator: there really was a market for computer newbies, whilst a lot more people are lot more computer savvy today. AOL was the first to use a GUI for its internet access, gave away free copies of its software to advertise and encourage growth of the online communication sector, and generally helped move the technological world forward (albeit in a very different fashion to, say, CompuServe). But Windows Vista is different: Vista tells the user that they can do less with their computer today than they could yesterday. It is, ultimately, a step backwards. It encourages peole to be ignorant about computers, and ultimately stagnates technological interest, and thus progress. Don't get me wrong: Windows has generally been a revelation. Windows XP is an extremely good operating system, beaten only by a few Apple Mac OS's, and it far and away the best OS for the PC. But Vista stinks. Making DirectX 10 exclusive to Vista, hoping to lock people in to the DRM at the same time, stinks. Dropping support for existing, stable and efficient 3rd party standards in favour of its own new, untried standards, stinks.

All you need is in Microsoft Vista Office, if it is not in Office then you don't need it.
If Vista Office crash in your computer you must purchase a new Vista compliant computer and an Office upgrade from Microsoft.
If Vista Office refuse to work again, your license have expired and you must purchase a new license from Microsoft.
You must  be happy, you are a priviledged Microsoft user! (don't forget to pay the monthly fees)

XPpro SP2  here on the workhorse, not connected to the Internet. No updates necessary, no virusscanner, nothing. I turned it all off and uninstalled all MS apps I could (messenger, paint,...) and reentered Wordpad to write some text.

The Internet? A cheap, older laptop with everything you need: free virus scan, free firewall, Spybot S&D,...
Data are transfered via a cruzer mini stick, no network (no, thank you!).
Should there ever be a serious problem, then everything is restored to default with the acompanying CD. No serial for XPhome necessary.

Never had any problems.
O, Vista you say? No, thanks. I'm happy with what I have. And in case of real trouble, I still have Win2K to which I can return. Everything work in it, and it does not have to be activated.

Can you run xp32 and xp64 on the same system? I haven't set up a dual boot system in years anyone know where to find the steps to do this?
Thanks
Marque

XP32 and XP64 as dual boot on the same system: can be done, my render station is set up that way.
First install XP32, then install XP64 on its own partition.
I installed Poser on a third partition. One Poser installation, can be run from both XP32 and XP64. Same goes for Vue5 Infinite.

Quote - Need more companies to take on MS for an OS. More competitions, less costs.

There's the old saying: "It's the software stupid".  The main reason why PC's running windows are so ubiquitous and make up the vast majority of all (home) computer systems, despite other platforms being arguably superior from a technical standpoint.

Right now the only platform that runs Poser, Bryce, Carrara, and all my games is Windows, so I'm stuck using that.  I have an AMD64 processor, but I'm stuck on a 32 bit system because support for XP64 blows (probably intentionally), and I'm not going anywhere near Windows Virus-ta.

Maybe once ReactOS is stable enough to be used as an everyday system Micro$oft will finally get smart if they want to continue to be able to market Windows to anyone other than the most technologically illterate of computer users.