G
G Mail Account
How mutch is a VLK - for XP and what does Win 7 future hold?
If some one could help me?
If some one could help me?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
R. McCarty
Volume Licensing is intended for business, schools and charities.
The cost for individual use would be very high. Those type of
organizations may also use Software Assurance licensing.
You can get more information about VLK here:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/how-volume-licensing-works.aspx
As to Windows Seven, not sure what you are asking. About
the only thing known is that future Windows releases will happen
more frequently than the time between XP & Vista. (2 - 3 Years)
The cost for individual use would be very high. Those type of
organizations may also use Software Assurance licensing.
You can get more information about VLK here:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/how-volume-licensing-works.aspx
As to Windows Seven, not sure what you are asking. About
the only thing known is that future Windows releases will happen
more frequently than the time between XP & Vista. (2 - 3 Years)
M
Malke
G said:How mutch is a VLK - for XP and what does Win 7 future hold?
If some one could help me?
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/servicecenter/Home.aspx
Malke
B
BillW50
In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:55:45 -0400:
The future of Microsoft's OS doesn't look too rosy to me. As there was a
leak that Windows 8 will be available in 128-bit only. Which means
goodbye to 32 and 64-bit compatibility. :-(
Volume Licensing is intended for business, schools and charities.
The cost for individual use would be very high. Those type of
organizations may also use Software Assurance licensing.
You can get more information about VLK here:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/how-volume-licensing-works.aspx
As to Windows Seven, not sure what you are asking. About
the only thing known is that future Windows releases will happen
more frequently than the time between XP & Vista. (2 - 3 Years)
The future of Microsoft's OS doesn't look too rosy to me. As there was a
leak that Windows 8 will be available in 128-bit only. Which means
goodbye to 32 and 64-bit compatibility. :-(
R
R. McCarty
What you state isn't framed correctly. Windows 8 development is
just in it's very preliminary state. The 128-Bit form of Windows is
just another of the possible future technology moves that Microsoft
has to consider. Both Intel & AMD have future chip designs on the
table and are publicized. As far as I know there is nothing on the
drawing board for a scheduled 128-Bit CPU.
Remember Windows is not only an OS but a cooperative development
between software and hardware vendors. The only known major
jump in PC technology is the pending release of USB 3.0
just in it's very preliminary state. The 128-Bit form of Windows is
just another of the possible future technology moves that Microsoft
has to consider. Both Intel & AMD have future chip designs on the
table and are publicized. As far as I know there is nothing on the
drawing board for a scheduled 128-Bit CPU.
Remember Windows is not only an OS but a cooperative development
between software and hardware vendors. The only known major
jump in PC technology is the pending release of USB 3.0
B
BillW50
In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:16:27 -0400:
The leak about Windows 8 slated to be released in 2012, was reported
here:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173442/windows_8_details_emerge.html
What you state isn't framed correctly. Windows 8 development is
just in it's very preliminary state. The 128-Bit form of Windows is
just another of the possible future technology moves that Microsoft
has to consider. Both Intel & AMD have future chip designs on the
table and are publicized. As far as I know there is nothing on the
drawing board for a scheduled 128-Bit CPU.
Remember Windows is not only an OS but a cooperative development
between software and hardware vendors. The only known major
jump in PC technology is the pending release of USB 3.0
The leak about Windows 8 slated to be released in 2012, was reported
here:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173442/windows_8_details_emerge.html
B
Bob I
BillW50 said:In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:55:45 -0400:
The future of Microsoft's OS doesn't look too rosy to me. As there was a
leak that Windows 8 will be available in 128-bit only. Which means
goodbye to 32 and 64-bit compatibility. :-(
Probably wouldn't run 32 bit apps natively, but through a VM would
likely work.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:16:27 -0400:
The leak about Windows 8 slated to be released in 2012, was reported
here:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173442/windows_8_details_emerge.html
Two points here:
1. That web page does *not* say that "Windows 8 will be available in
128-bit only." What it says is "The version of Windows that succeeds
Windows 7 will *include* a 128-bit architecture." The highlighting of
the word "include" is my addition, to call attention to it.
2. That web page also says "Windows 8 is scheduled to become available
in 2012." I don't know whether it actually scheduled for that year, or
just estimated to be available that year, but I strongly suspect the
latter; Microsoft has no history of publishing schedules three years
in advance. The record of Microsoft (and other software companies) in
meeting schedules or estimates for release of operating systems or
other major software products three years in the future is very poor.
When it actually turns out to be released is very much up in the air.
G
G Mail Account
The future of Microsoft's OS doesn't look too rosy to me. As there was a
Sorry - but I found your post amusing....should we just throw our hands in
the air and give up..? Its like we're puppies chasing the Microsoft Milk
nanny...and shes on roller-skates!
But thanx for the info....
leak that Windows 8 will be available in 128-bit only. Which means goodbye
to 32 and 64-bit compatibility. :-(
Sorry - but I found your post amusing....should we just throw our hands in
the air and give up..? Its like we're puppies chasing the Microsoft Milk
nanny...and shes on roller-skates!
But thanx for the info....
G
G Mail Account
Yes - but isnt Apple involved in optical technology which will wreck USB for
good if it ever comes true?
good if it ever comes true?
G
G Mail Account
Two points here:
1. That web page does *not* say that "Windows 8 will be available in
128-bit only." What it says is "The version of Windows that succeeds
Windows 7 will *include* a 128-bit architecture." The highlighting of
the word "include" is my addition, to call attention to it.
2. That web page also says "Windows 8 is scheduled to become available
in 2012." I don't know whether it actually scheduled for that year, or
just estimated to be available that year, but I strongly suspect the
latter; Microsoft has no history of publishing schedules three years
in advance. The record of Microsoft (and other software companies) in
meeting schedules or estimates for release of operating systems or
other major software products three years in the future is very poor.
When it actually turns out to be released is very much up in the air.
That's increasing erritating to hear that. Why did people stick with XP -
and refused to go Vista....if Win7 turns out to be that good, then I can see
people sticking and not allowing MS to cattle-prod them into buying for the
sake of buying shinny-new.
B
BillW50
In Bob I typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:27:07 -0500:
And you're okay with virtual machines? I am not a big fan of them. As I
like the real thing far better myself. Although when you don't have a
choice... what can I say?
Probably wouldn't run 32 bit apps natively, but through a VM would
likely work.
And you're okay with virtual machines? I am not a big fan of them. As I
like the real thing far better myself. Although when you don't have a
choice... what can I say?
B
BillW50
In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:17 -0700:
Why would you build 128-bit architecture if there wasn't for any 128-bit
applications? I mean once Windows changed from 16-bit architecture to
32-bit, 32-bit applications soon followed. When it went from 32-bit to
64-bit, the same. So I figure when it goes to 128-bit, the same is also
true. Or you do you believe otherwise?
"According to Microsoft's plans to release a new desktop version of
Windows every three years, Windows 8 is scheduled to become available in
2012."
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3203583
Two points here:
1. That web page does *not* say that "Windows 8 will be available in
128-bit only." What it says is "The version of Windows that succeeds
Windows 7 will *include* a 128-bit architecture." The highlighting of
the word "include" is my addition, to call attention to it.
Why would you build 128-bit architecture if there wasn't for any 128-bit
applications? I mean once Windows changed from 16-bit architecture to
32-bit, 32-bit applications soon followed. When it went from 32-bit to
64-bit, the same. So I figure when it goes to 128-bit, the same is also
true. Or you do you believe otherwise?
2. That web page also says "Windows 8 is scheduled to become available
in 2012." I don't know whether it actually scheduled for that year, or
just estimated to be available that year, but I strongly suspect the
latter; Microsoft has no history of publishing schedules three years
in advance. The record of Microsoft (and other software companies) in
meeting schedules or estimates for release of operating systems or
other major software products three years in the future is very poor.
When it actually turns out to be released is very much up in the air.
"According to Microsoft's plans to release a new desktop version of
Windows every three years, Windows 8 is scheduled to become available in
2012."
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3203583
B
BillW50
In G Mail Account typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:07:04 +0100:
Yeah well lemmings aren't too bright if you ask me. But if somebody
wants to become one, I say go for it. ;-)
Sorry - but I found your post amusing....should we just throw our
hands in the air and give up..? Its like we're puppies chasing the
Microsoft Milk nanny...and shes on roller-skates!
But thanx for the info....
Yeah well lemmings aren't too bright if you ask me. But if somebody
wants to become one, I say go for it. ;-)
P
Paul
BillW50 said:In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:17 -0700:
Why would you build 128-bit architecture if there wasn't for any 128-bit
applications? I mean once Windows changed from 16-bit architecture to
32-bit, 32-bit applications soon followed. When it went from 32-bit to
64-bit, the same. So I figure when it goes to 128-bit, the same is also
true. Or you do you believe otherwise?
<<snip>>
The architectural change, is more likely to be something like this.
And that is not "x86-128". That is a fat wart on the side of the
processor. If there is more to this story, then it is well hidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE5
Check the table here, for what is scheduled to come out in 2010.
"SSE5/AVX, highly modular design".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
These are the next two Intel projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Haswell_(microarchitecture)
Paul
A
Anteaus
Not checked recently but last time I did it was simply uneconomic for small
sites.
sites.
S
sgopus
Lets see, my crystal ball seems to be on the fritz, what else do you expect
with a question like that, more detail please
with a question like that, more detail please