[url]http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=40364[/url]

The prediction is based on the bloat increase projected into the future...
As I showed in a sloppy graph I made and another comment later on.. it seems
that windows 2010 will need
around 100 gb hard disk space and at least 2 gb of ram minimum for itself.

With the current rate of bloat the OS itself will use most of the 3
(theoretically 4) gb of ram that a 32 bit OS
can handle

So the only way MS can continue its sloppy bloat is to end the 32 bit
era....

I agree with the death of 32 bit, but in order to give more memory to
applications not
to enable windows 2010 to bloat into a monster that will put vista into
shame.. lol

Think of vista as the baby monster.. and the windows they plan as the momma
monster....

But I have also predicted something else... that will end all this nonsense!

It is sure to come to pass!

Beam me up Captian. We need to purchase Lottery tickets!


"Tiberius" <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote in message
news:uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=40364[/url]
>
> The prediction is based on the bloat increase projected into the future...
> As I showed in a sloppy graph I made and another comment later on.. it
> seems that windows 2010 will need
> around 100 gb hard disk space and at least 2 gb of ram minimum for itself.
>
> With the current rate of bloat the OS itself will use most of the 3
> (theoretically 4) gb of ram that a 32 bit OS
> can handle
>
> So the only way MS can continue its sloppy bloat is to end the 32 bit
> era....
>
> I agree with the death of 32 bit, but in order to give more memory to
> applications not
> to enable windows 2010 to bloat into a monster that will put vista into
> shame.. lol
>
> Think of vista as the baby monster.. and the windows they plan as the
> momma monster....
>
> But I have also predicted something else... that will end all this
> nonsense!
>
> It is sure to come to pass!
>
>
>
>[/color]

Actually the idea of Vista being the last 32-bit OS is a not accurate. Some
confusion in the media:

[url]http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/18/on-64-bit-and-windows-client.aspx[/url]


"Tiberius" <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote in message
news:uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=40364[/url]
>
> The prediction is based on the bloat increase projected into the future...
> As I showed in a sloppy graph I made and another comment later on.. it
> seems that windows 2010 will need
> around 100 gb hard disk space and at least 2 gb of ram minimum for itself.
>
> With the current rate of bloat the OS itself will use most of the 3
> (theoretically 4) gb of ram that a 32 bit OS
> can handle
>
> So the only way MS can continue its sloppy bloat is to end the 32 bit
> era....
>
> I agree with the death of 32 bit, but in order to give more memory to
> applications not
> to enable windows 2010 to bloat into a monster that will put vista into
> shame.. lol
>
> Think of vista as the baby monster.. and the windows they plan as the
> momma monster....
>
> But I have also predicted something else... that will end all this
> nonsense!
>
> It is sure to come to pass!
>
>
>
>[/color]

In message <uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Tiberius"
<James@tiberius.kirk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Subject: as predicted by me, Vista is the last 32 bit OS by MS[/color]

A swing and a miss, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server, but
Microsoft did not say Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS.

The media is confused.

--
We know America is a great nation! Where else could a poor black boy
be born in utter poverty and end up a rich white man?
Only in America!

Perhaps... but the requirements of windows are increasing in a logarithmic
scale,
as I have said, with the current growth the OS will need about 2 gb of ram
for itself....

and with 32 bit that will leave you with only 1- 1.2 gb of usable ram for
the apps.

Perhaps MS will make a 32 bit version of win2010, but its sure that they
will heavily promote
64 bit. I agree with this... it is time to go into 64 bit... however I
believe that the OS should be streamlined
and fast and lite giving the resources to the applications you need.


"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:40vp439ce3op7rjpo9fv1p2g2913k8lisq@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> In message <uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Tiberius"
> <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Subject: as predicted by me, Vista is the last 32 bit OS by MS[/color]
>
> A swing and a miss, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server, but
> Microsoft did not say Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS.
>
> The media is confused.
>
> --
> We know America is a great nation! Where else could a poor black boy
> be born in utter poverty and end up a rich white man?
> Only in America![/color]

Just a comment on what T has written.
If you have been involved with computers as long as I have you would have
seen the growth of hard drive space needed to run the O/S's. Back in the days
of DOS 3 & 4 you could run them from a floppy disk and with DOS 3 you
basically had to. Then as Windows got graphical with Win 2 & 3 you started to
need more space.
During the period of Win 3 up to Win for Workgroups you were able to trim
the fat off of it to make it a lean mean O/S but now that is virtually
impossible. Even if you just use your computer to send email and write the
odd letter you still need Gigs of space just for the O/S. It would be great
however if during installation you could custom your Win installation and
only use what you want with the option of adding more of it later if you
wished.
With regards to whether 32 bit will eventually die out is uncertain as
manufacturers of Third Party driver are reluctant or just plain slack at
creating 64 bit drivers for their products. You would think that with all the
time the manufactures have to create drivers for a new O/S that there would
be choices out there to cover whether you have 32 or 64 bit O/S. Some
complain about what MS does or doesn't do with regards to you being able to
run certain programs but I believe that the third party manufacturers are the
problem. As an example Nero allow you to use their product in both 32 and 64
bit under Win XP but not under Vista 64 bit, this isn't MS's fault but the
slackness of Nero.

"Tiberius" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Perhaps... but the requirements of windows are increasing in a logarithmic
> scale,
> as I have said, with the current growth the OS will need about 2 gb of ram
> for itself....
>
> and with 32 bit that will leave you with only 1- 1.2 gb of usable ram for
> the apps.
>
> Perhaps MS will make a 32 bit version of win2010, but its sure that they
> will heavily promote
> 64 bit. I agree with this... it is time to go into 64 bit... however I
> believe that the OS should be streamlined
> and fast and lite giving the resources to the applications you need.
>
>
> "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> news:40vp439ce3op7rjpo9fv1p2g2913k8lisq@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > In message <uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Tiberius"
> > <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Subject: as predicted by me, Vista is the last 32 bit OS by MS[/color]
> >
> > A swing and a miss, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server, but
> > Microsoft did not say Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS.
> >
> > The media is confused.
> >
> > --
> > We know America is a great nation! Where else could a poor black boy
> > be born in utter poverty and end up a rich white man?
> > Only in America![/color]
>
>
>[/color]

Nero doesnt allow you???
I think people will pressure them to change that.....

its illogical


"Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2AF0F145-D149-4F1B-A06F-D944055EB83B@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Just a comment on what T has written.
> If you have been involved with computers as long as I have you would have
> seen the growth of hard drive space needed to run the O/S's. Back in the
> days
> of DOS 3 & 4 you could run them from a floppy disk and with DOS 3 you
> basically had to. Then as Windows got graphical with Win 2 & 3 you started
> to
> need more space.
> During the period of Win 3 up to Win for Workgroups you were able to trim
> the fat off of it to make it a lean mean O/S but now that is virtually
> impossible. Even if you just use your computer to send email and write the
> odd letter you still need Gigs of space just for the O/S. It would be
> great
> however if during installation you could custom your Win installation and
> only use what you want with the option of adding more of it later if you
> wished.
> With regards to whether 32 bit will eventually die out is uncertain as
> manufacturers of Third Party driver are reluctant or just plain slack at
> creating 64 bit drivers for their products. You would think that with all
> the
> time the manufactures have to create drivers for a new O/S that there
> would
> be choices out there to cover whether you have 32 or 64 bit O/S. Some
> complain about what MS does or doesn't do with regards to you being able
> to
> run certain programs but I believe that the third party manufacturers are
> the
> problem. As an example Nero allow you to use their product in both 32 and
> 64
> bit under Win XP but not under Vista 64 bit, this isn't MS's fault but the
> slackness of Nero.
>
> "Tiberius" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Perhaps... but the requirements of windows are increasing in a
>> logarithmic
>> scale,
>> as I have said, with the current growth the OS will need about 2 gb of
>> ram
>> for itself....
>>
>> and with 32 bit that will leave you with only 1- 1.2 gb of usable ram for
>> the apps.
>>
>> Perhaps MS will make a 32 bit version of win2010, but its sure that they
>> will heavily promote
>> 64 bit. I agree with this... it is time to go into 64 bit... however I
>> believe that the OS should be streamlined
>> and fast and lite giving the resources to the applications you need.
>>
>>
>> "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>> news:40vp439ce3op7rjpo9fv1p2g2913k8lisq@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In message <uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Tiberius"
>> > <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Subject: as predicted by me, Vista is the last 32 bit OS by MS
>> >
>> > A swing and a miss, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server, but
>> > Microsoft did not say Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS.
>> >
>> > The media is confused.
>> >
>> > --
>> > We know America is a great nation! Where else could a poor black boy
>> > be born in utter poverty and end up a rich white man?
>> > Only in America![/color]
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

T,

It would be good if Nero would answer their emails.

"Tiberius" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nero doesnt allow you???
> I think people will pressure them to change that.....
>
> its illogical
>
>
> "Bob" <Bob@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2AF0F145-D149-4F1B-A06F-D944055EB83B@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > Just a comment on what T has written.
> > If you have been involved with computers as long as I have you would have
> > seen the growth of hard drive space needed to run the O/S's. Back in the
> > days
> > of DOS 3 & 4 you could run them from a floppy disk and with DOS 3 you
> > basically had to. Then as Windows got graphical with Win 2 & 3 you started
> > to
> > need more space.
> > During the period of Win 3 up to Win for Workgroups you were able to trim
> > the fat off of it to make it a lean mean O/S but now that is virtually
> > impossible. Even if you just use your computer to send email and write the
> > odd letter you still need Gigs of space just for the O/S. It would be
> > great
> > however if during installation you could custom your Win installation and
> > only use what you want with the option of adding more of it later if you
> > wished.
> > With regards to whether 32 bit will eventually die out is uncertain as
> > manufacturers of Third Party driver are reluctant or just plain slack at
> > creating 64 bit drivers for their products. You would think that with all
> > the
> > time the manufactures have to create drivers for a new O/S that there
> > would
> > be choices out there to cover whether you have 32 or 64 bit O/S. Some
> > complain about what MS does or doesn't do with regards to you being able
> > to
> > run certain programs but I believe that the third party manufacturers are
> > the
> > problem. As an example Nero allow you to use their product in both 32 and
> > 64
> > bit under Win XP but not under Vista 64 bit, this isn't MS's fault but the
> > slackness of Nero.
> >
> > "Tiberius" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Perhaps... but the requirements of windows are increasing in a
> >> logarithmic
> >> scale,
> >> as I have said, with the current growth the OS will need about 2 gb of
> >> ram
> >> for itself....
> >>
> >> and with 32 bit that will leave you with only 1- 1.2 gb of usable ram for
> >> the apps.
> >>
> >> Perhaps MS will make a 32 bit version of win2010, but its sure that they
> >> will heavily promote
> >> 64 bit. I agree with this... it is time to go into 64 bit... however I
> >> believe that the OS should be streamlined
> >> and fast and lite giving the resources to the applications you need.
> >>
> >>
> >> "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> >> news:40vp439ce3op7rjpo9fv1p2g2913k8lisq@4ax.com...
> >> > In message <uBVxM$LmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Tiberius"
> >> > <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Subject: as predicted by me, Vista is the last 32 bit OS by MS
> >> >
> >> > A swing and a miss, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server, but
> >> > Microsoft did not say Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS.
> >> >
> >> > The media is confused.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > We know America is a great nation! Where else could a poor black boy
> >> > be born in utter poverty and end up a rich white man?
> >> > Only in America!
> >>
> >>
> >>[/color][/color]
>
>
>[/color]