VLK - How mutch?

[G Mail Account]

How mutch is a VLK - for XP and what does Win 7 future hold?


If some one could help me?

 

[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)

 

[Malke]

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

 

[BillW50]

In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:55:45 -0400:

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. 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

 

[BillW50]

In R. McCarty typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:16:27 -0400:

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

 

[Bob I]

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.

 

[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 Mail Account]

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. :-(

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 Mail Account]

Yes - but isnt Apple involved in optical technology which will wreck USB for
good if it ever comes true?

 

[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.

 

[BillW50]

In Bob I typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:27:07 -0500:

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?

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:17 -0700:

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

 

[BillW50]

In G Mail Account typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:07:04 +0100:

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. ;-)

 

[Paul]

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

 

[Anteaus]

Not checked recently but last time I did it was simply uneconomic for small
sites.

 

[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