Some site updates: Windows 7 TV tuner support, Office 2010 tech preview

Yeah, I'm lost on why an x64 version of Office is necessary, personally.

Paul, I can think of at least two reasons: As Waethorn said, huge files: Some people work with really big files (complex analysis in Excel as the obvious example) and so large memory access is important. Simplicity of the stack: Having to run 32-bit applications in a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is always going to be more complex and thus more prone to both errors and inefficiencies than running 64-bit on 64-bit on 64-bit. The real question is why would you want to run a 32-bit version of anything on a 64 bit platform given a choice?

I don't know about you guys but I have worked on Word with high number of hi-res images before and it was extremely cranky on a 1GB RAM. It was fairly frustrating. Excel and Access would benefit greatly from the greater access to more addresses. Powerpoint.... haven't been using for awhile but having more memory would make it smoother.

Why a 64bit version? I agree with Mike, why would you want any 32 code running on a 64bit OS if you did not have too? Memory is addressed in a much flatter way with 64bit Windows.

"I agree with Mike, why would you want any 32 code running on a 64bit OS if you did not have too?" The only example would be when you want to reduce the overhead of applications that require less than a 2GB memory address, and when you don't need 64-bit floating point. There are many small utility applications that just don't need to be 64-bit. Also, you'd have to worry about cross-compatibility with legacy modules within the existing application as well. Microsoft does 64-bit correctly in Windows though: 32-bit threads just switch the processor to hybrid 32/64 mode when necessary using WOW64. If you always run 64-bit threads on Windows x64, the processor would always be in native x64 mode. That doesn't happen though, because there are many modules in Windows that still use 32-bit threads. Fully 64-bit threads still run the CPU in native mode though.

On the TV tuner side, can it serve as a cable box [STB] replacement? My pipe dream, as posted many times, is to have the family room computer do everything, including serve as a Comcast STB replacement, using a remote. The TV tuner cards for Comcast seem only for the TV set itself, rather than a computer.

@panache: It's possible, just not in native mode by the CPU.

Waethorn, What does that mean? From what I can tell, floating point has been calculated with 64-bit precision for a long time now, nothing to do with 64-bit CPU. Even my 32 bit core duo on my 32 bit WinXP does 64-bit floating point.

@wae ME: "you have no idea that you can't easily configure one specific app to run always without any UAC prompt if it needs admin privileges, short of disabling UAC altogether" WAE: "Ya, cuz you know that's why they don't have the option to enable administrative privileges for all users in the Compatibility tab of the program properties sheet." See, wae, you haven't even tried this option in the compatibility tab, 'cause otherwise you'd notice that the UAC dialog DOES _NOT_ go away when this option is selected. I thought you knew how UAC and VIsta work but looks like I was wrong, you don't know even the basics.

OT: Looks like it's time again for the Mac fanbois to return to their ongoing defense of the indefensible... But, hey, I'm sure they'll eventually do one about surfing the web in a coffee shop all day and then Apple will win one. ------------------------------- With just $1700 to spend and a little help from Mom, Lauren finds her perfect laptop—a portable and speedy Dell with a battery life for long law-school lectures. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/watchtheads/video/laurenandsue/?playBig...

So, 32 bit Windows systems address 3 gigs of RAM? Or, is it 4? It -should- be 4 but I keep hearing that it isn't. Can anyone say why? I suppose, like the old (now, really OLD) 64oK limit, it is probably because certain things are memory mapped in the high end of the address space. This probably varies all over the lot depending on which version (there's that issue again) of Windows that you use. On the flip side (another old expression these days), "32 bit" OS X handles 6 gigs in the latest Mac notebooks, and I don't know how they do that, but it sure is nice. I just went and looked at the product comparison table Paul linked to. It has 475 entries!* Of course, the OS X chart has no entries, because Apple doesn't do things that way. You might say Apple is too simplistic (eg, 1 button mouse), but please, 475 entries in a feature comparison table? Go look at "If Microsoft Made the iPod Packaging" video again. I swear, it's in the corporate genes, they just can't stop..... *At least. I might have counted wrong.

Spelling error...of = off. [SIC] hammer to my head! --tayme

For someone who dislikes Microsoft, chuck sure spends a lot of time researching it. I've seen a lot of people who have sworn off MS products, but spend a lot of time talking about them and researching them. It's like robertsjoe with his anti-MS news aggregation service. Kind of irrational.

Here you go mikey...Paul even gives you a way to complain to him. Of course, you were probably unable to make it that far into the post - "Note: This is a preliminary list that was recently updated to account for changes in the Windows 7 Release Candidate. If you see anything missing, or would like to see a certain feature added, please contact me." --tayme

64 bit double precision floating point has been available for quite some time, well before the wide availability of "64-bit" processors. In fact, the 'double' simply stems from the fact that the value is stored in two adjacent 32-bit registers. in 64-bit architecture, a float should, by default (and, in theory), represelt a 64-bit float. However, it should be noted, that 64-bit float is not actually the most accurate method for scientific computing. Other variables can provide greater representation of significant digits. Now, as to the issue of supporting more than 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit OS, this is a slightly thorny issue. Physical adress extension can be used to adress registers greater than 4GB (how else would we access hard disks over 4GB in size?) but it comes at a slight performance cost. There are 32-bit versions of Windows Server that allow more than 4GB of RAM to be adressed, by utilising PAE, where the advantage of having acess to more RAM outweighs the performance hit.

So, with no rational argument, we start calling names, eh, Mike? Sorry, I won't stoop to it. As for "can't count", it's rows times columns in a table that -Paul- made, not me. It anyone "can't count" it's Paul. I can't swear I got the number exactly right because I had to scroll down the page so many times, but it's close. Good to see you're back at Microsoft, because (and I don't even mean it pejoratively) you fit right in. The stupidity---which is obvious to anyone outside Microsoft---is that this table is even NEEDED, not how many entries it has, or what "versions" of Windows are "seen at retail" or in what countries. God's teeth, your whole argument is a non sequitur. Go watch the "If Microsoft Did the iPod Packaging" again. Eventually, it may sink in. BTW, I liked the use of "acalculia"; it's a pity your logic doesn't live up to your vocabulary.

"For someone who dislikes Microsoft, chuck sure spends a lot of time researching it." Kind of like Paul, whose obsessing over Apple never stops? Which is unusual, obsessing over Apple with, of course, that 3% marketshare, and who you can ignore if you wish, or researching the 800 lb Gorilla that has used illegal anti-competitive behaviors to insert itself into everyone's daily life? I'd happily ignore Microsoft, it only they would go away. I still have hope for that, but it will take some time.

Mike, Once more, Paul made the table not me, and he did it to compare versions. Yes, it is a sparse matrix; most of the entries are redundant and the information can be compressed. But, for most people, it is presented just as Paul did it, a 5x95 table. Of course, the point, again, is not if there are 475 distinct entries, but why the table needs to exist at all. The answer is that this sort of thing is embedded in the genome of Microsoft and they literally can't help it. Ballmer is basically a used car salesman and, in the depths of his soul, he thinks this is how marketing works. How many cupholders? How many cylinders? How many cubic inches? How wide are the tires? Etc. Given what you drive, I suspect that you get the idea of a gestalt for cars and that the whole is NOT the sum of the parts. My 2002 days are long gone, but I got it then with cars, and I get it now with computers. I typically drive a few minutes a day, but I use a computer 8+ hours daily, so it matters to me. I regret that our dialogue has descended to a low level; I think you're better than that.

"Kind of like Paul, whose obsessing over Apple never stops? " Paul buys Apple's products and even likes them. Sorry, that argument is flawed. But, then again, we're not talking rational here. "I'd happily ignore Microsoft, it only they would go away. I still have hope for that, but it will take some time." Ahh, so you post here because you want to ignore Microsoft, but you can't ignore Microsoft as long as the company exists, so you post here. Again, logic? "Which is unusual, obsessing over Apple with, of course, that 3% marketshare, and who you can ignore if you wish, or researching the 800 lb Gorilla that has used illegal anti-competitive behaviors to insert itself into everyone's daily life?" Hah. You hear about Microsoft generally only in Microsoft centric blogs and sites like this one or Apple centric sites. Apple is everywhere, dude. Which world are you living in? Their ads are on all channels and on most web sites that I visit. It's easy to ignore Microsoft unless you work in an office that uses MS products. Even then, complaining on a Windows site about too much MS???!!?

Paul's link above calls it "Windows 7 Product Editions: A Comparison". Perhaps you would rather consider it a list of similarities. --tayme

There are pluses and minuses, as with everything, with 64-bit Office. Assuming Office uses a bunch of 64-bit integers for arithmetic for various operations, sure -- maybe a little boost there. If it's just the usual hodge podge of Win32 code, as with most applications, we could see a performance hit given the same code/data eat twice the amount of memory due to various things like alignments and various padded types. Of course, Microsoft will make a few sweeps through the code to improve performance and it'll be attributed, by the media, to the architecture and whatnot.

Mike, "The real question is why did you feel the need to pretend a feature list was a list of differences? Is OS X so pathetic that it's fans can't even argue for it on the merits without being deceptive? Or are you now arguing that Windows shouldn't have hundreds of features?" Hmm, I might have thought the "feature list" was a list of differences because Paul labeled it as "Windows 7 Product Editions: A Comparison". I don't know how you see it, but a comparison lists similarities and differences, yes? Furthermore, the article says "I believe these tables will help you pick which Windows 7 product edition makes the most sense for you, based on your needs and wants". That is, you pick the version you want based on the DIFFERENCES between the versions. So, call it what you will. The columns are a "feature list" for each version of the OS, the rows are each lists of differences. The other two sentences from you are misdirection. The only remark I have about OS X in this thread is that there is ONE version. The only comment I have about Windows is that the multiplicity of versions is confusing, that it stands in stark contrast to what Apple does, and it leads to confusion for buyers. Confusion, or choice? We can each draw our own conclusions, but there's no doubt that table exists to illustrate differences between the WIndows 7 versions. I think the real question is why all those versions exist? One OS version is so simple, doesn't cost more to produce----it might even cost less.

In reality, neither company is wrong. MS markets to a much broader customer base than Apple does...thus the need for multiple versions. As many have pointed out here and other places, the average Joe Consumer will never need to decide, because they will buy a computer that has the OS installed. The rest of the buyers will most likely know what they are wanting and will buy accordingly. At some point you will all come to realize that both companies have a market that they serve very well. Both companies make good products. They have different philosophies, and that is good...that is what makes this world an interesting place. If everything was the same, what fun would that be? --tayme

@panache: Using 64-bit SIMD instructional code is faster on a newer CPU than using it on a system with only 32-bit wide registers. Why? Because you can stack much more data into less registers. Most CPU's now even support 128-bit registers. The precision issues stem from the lack of available registers on higher computations. This is a known issue with Intel architecture that was only recently (relatively speaking) been addressed. @chuck: 32-bit architecture requires that all memory address space be mapped under 4GB (not speaking about PAE). This includes hardware addresses for ROMs, and add-in cards with RAM that is addressed at least somewhat directly (ie. video). Some cards don't allow direct access to ROMs or RAM (those will have proprietary interfaces from their own controller chip - think about our previous discussion about MIDI tone modules, where the MIDI interface is just that: very-limited, but also the only interface to the sound bank). Video card RAM is a sore spot, since your 256MB of video RAM has to be addressable by the system. Then you also need hardware access to such things as motherboard resources. Many PCI Express systems with a video card will often consume exactly 7/8's of a GB, thereby leaving 3.125GB free for normal RAM processes (read: for the OS to utilize for normal app usage). Sometimes the actual amount consumed will be less than 7/8's, and often video cards will start at a lower address within that top GB than they actually need to fill the block, which leaves an unconsumed portion in the middle. Windows Vista doesn't support segmented RAM address blocks though, so it cuts off the RAM at the lowest contiguous address before hardware resources begin. There are performance and technical reasons for this too. One of the big reasons is because of video cards with dynamic RAM allocation (such as onboard video, or video cards that use a hybrid on-board/system-RAM approach, ie. "Hypermemory"). Those cards don't often report to the system exactly how much RAM they'll actually use, so Windows safely reserves as much as the aperture allows by not freeing up those addresses for the OS. .... Also, PAE isn't just about performance issues. There are also major compatibility issues with it, which is why it's disabled by default. It doesn't matter anyway - it was just a very shortly-lived stop-gap feature to transition between 32-bit and 64-bit. Everybody should be just using 64-bit now.

Chuck Here. I'll save Paul the trouble. Here's the list you described as at least 475 entries and "a monster" that's just too hard to understand reduced to just the differences between the 2 versions you'll find at retail... ------------------ If you need any of the following features you should buy Windows 7 Professional. If you don't need them, buy Windows Home Premium More than 16GB in a 64-bit system Backup to network Encrypting file system Offline files The full version of Windows Mobility Center Domain Join (Windows Server) XP Mode license Location aware printing