logically it is what i would do
but MS timeline clearly slates Win XP AMD64 bit edition mid 2005

Windows Longhorn is slated mid-late 2006

so i doubt it

32 bit currently.

both versions most likely.

i have a question though,

with linux, they just recompiled it for 64 bit and that was all. why is it taking so damn long to make xp 64?

and i think the longhorn release dadte is firmly placed at may 24th.

http://winsupersite.com/showcase/lon...eview_2005.asp - releases

http://winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4051.asp - review

I know for a fact that longhorn *will* run older windows apps. I know this cause i downloaded the beta version from isohunt.com and installed it. It installed firefox with no problem. Maybe not all older apps, but all that i've tried. it DOES NOT accept xp drivers though, but the out of the box drivers have been much improved. I think longhorn will be a very solid product, but dont worry, i WILL NOT pay for it. I would never support billy.

for starters do your self a favour and learn to read thoroughly
really the longhorn beta is still not very indicitive of the final product


did you also notice that even eartlier versions of Longhorn Beta had Windows XP now loading as the boot screen?

They still havent included Avalon in the Beta longhorn i tried

Firefox is not a legacy Windows 16 bit program or written in VB pre .NET
it was written for Windows NT5+ with added backward capatability with 9x


P.S if i felt Windows was a such a quality product as you exert to us I'd pay for it.
so why do you steal it??

My, my carl0ski, why does it seem like everything I say you have to argue wit? I clearly stated that it was the beta version and i ran a few programs on it - thats all. I didnt say the final version will be 100% compatible (although I didnt say it wouldnt). carl0ski, stop arguing with me just for the sake of it. If i'm wrong - who cares? i gave my two cents and thats all. Go on vacation or something.

It sounds almost like you didnt even read your own post.

compare these sentences

P.S i am on vacation

Your right, I should have said *does* rather than will. Enjoy your vacation.

Oh, and I steal windows because I would never support those bastards down at M$. Go ahead and argue with we cause I do. I think they are a bunch greedy bastards.

beta versions ARE but they can change that quickly

true

The first 32-bit x86 processor came out in 1985 (80386). The first 32-bit consumer Microsoft Operating system (Windows 95) came out in 1995.

Why steal Windows when theirs Linux :P

windows 95 is NOT a 32 bit OS, it is 16bit with 32bit extentions, windows 2000 was there first true 32bit OS.

-Joey

what are you people smoking?

they wont cut software compatibility. that would be just stupid. current progs will probably get support cut off at blackcomb, which is supposed to be released 5 years from now and then add 2-3 more years of delays.

The only thing I'm worried about are my games. It's the only thing Windows is good for. Since a hell lot of Win98 Games stopped working under WinXP (even DirectX based and running under compatibility mode). Perhaps MS could work in some sort of real emulation for Win9x under Longhorn ratter then including a hell lot of API's and .dll's just for the sake of keeping backward compatibility.

I'm totally against backward compatibility the way it works today. It's never good enough. Take for example old Win95 games as Blood Omen - Legacy of Kain. That game writes directly to the video memory and that is not allowed under WinNT+ anymore. Running that game today will cause a huge random lock-down and you've to reboot the machine. That was very common before, when one application running an exception would take down the hole system. If that was running on the top of a emulator and the game crashes, you just need to kill the emulator.

PS2 works well with backward compatibility of PSone games, but it also came with the cost of a few games not running anymore and I bet it also came with a price on the system design and overall performance in order to run PSone games. What I mean is, PS2 could have been even more powerful if they have just aimmed to PS2 games and not backward compatibility (this is just another "Conspiracy Theory", no flames please )

So, if they create a real Win9x emulator (even if at the cost of speed) I believe peoples would be much more happy then the way things work today. Perhaps something like Wine or Cedega under Windows? But then, they would have to make those applications really work, because the current compatibility list of both is ratter low and I bet Longhorn alone will run more Win9x and XP applications then Wine or Cedega currently does...

Just a thought, no pun intended...