I want a copy of Windows 7 to try as well!

I wouldn't even bother worrying what businesses adopt , no matter what OS it is they are late to upgrade to it. Be it Vista or WS2008. Even hardware wise they are slow on adoption. As it stands right now WS2008 is the last server OS to have a 32-bit/64-bit version. From now on server-side operating systems will be strictly 64-bit, but with that being said they can run 32-bit applications flawlessly.

 It honestly wouldn't surprise me that Windows 7 could be the last 32-bit only OS. I thought for sure Vista would be, but I have a feeling with the amount of users making the switch from XP 32-bit to Vista 64-bit we might be seeing the last 32-bit workstation OS. Windows 7 could very well be the turning point, but like anything it may flop and it may end up being 4+ years before 64-bit becomes the industry standard.

Well I have a few things I'd like them to sort out.  

Everything pausing because I put a scratched CD in the drive or accidentally clicked on the floppy symbol when it's empty. Ok, I could turn off autorun, but really, what happened to multi-tasking?

Folder views.  I set everything to list, because I like list.  I agree that icons that show you what is inside the folder and maybe give you a preview are very nice and useful and impressive.  I still prefer list, I can get around quicker that way.  So, when I do 'apply to all folders', why are there so many that refuse to take list as their default?

The whole user-specific folders mess.  I would like some restriction on where exactly programs can put their stuff, so that AppData actually goes into AppData and doesn't just sit arbitrarily in my user space root.  The main thing I have learned is that my documents should never ever go into My Documents, because it's too full of clutter, so I'll never find them again.

This is already available to developers. It appears they're going to use it in more applications in Windows 7, possibly including Wordpad and Paint.

Not that I ever use Wordpad or paint. Wordpad doesn't even have a simple spell check, and Paint is seriously underpowered.

Agreed. Or at least make it the default.

Surely you've heard of Autoruns. Yes, it would be nice to have it as part of the OS rather than a separate application.

Live Mesh. 'nuff said. It looks like a lot more will be announced at PDC.

Such hardware is becoming difficult to find. In order to get past Microsoft's WHQL labs and get the "Designed for Windows" logo approved to be used on your products, you must have 64 bit drivers. It is already a requirement for all new hardware.

Well, the Quick Access toolbar can be customized. One of the major problems with previous versions of office was that more people destroyed their interface and didn't know how to reset it than actually knew and used the customization features. Turns out total customization was quite rare.

You can blame stupid/lazy users for this "little bit of UI authoritarianism."

I see 64 bit happening across the board in the consumer market. Major OEMs are already making it available and even the default for new consumer PCs.

Businesses have always been slow anyways. I've heard that quite a few businesses are still using Windows 2000.

Totally, completely agreed. This whole folder view thing is a royal mess. I keep banging my head on this. It's absurdly inconsistent and loves to forget settings. There's no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. It needs to be fixed.

Agreed. It is annoying.

Developers: My documents is for my documents. it is not for your program settings or a place to put customization features. Please do not place anything in there.

I hope that windows 7 gives the ability for any version to log into a domain server...  It irritated me that windows vista did not allow several of my computers to log into my domain server because they were "Home" versions.  Some homes have networks...

For me, that's pretty close to telling a pastry chef who's just been diagnosed diabetic that Splenda is a lot like sugar. Technically accurate, but pretty much cruel in its fullness.

Instead of being able to create and place my own toolbars, including menus with custom keyboard paths for complex tasks, I'm left in an amputated state where I can have at most 10 quickly keyboard-accessible single commands. The ribbon doesn't even want you to try to learn a keyboard task path--there's no way to leave the accelerator keys called out in the UI.

64 bit will allow use of all 4 GB and access to 64 bit registers, so there is still some benefit. I don't think it's a big enough benefit to warrant completely replacing the OS on an existing system, though. The best thing to do is to upgrade to 64 bit when you buy a new computer.

You'd be surprised how much hardware now supports 64 bit. The later Pentium 4s and all of the Core 2s support 64 bits. Pretty much anything from Intel or AMD that you buy new is going to support 64 bits.

This is exactly what is being done in 64 bit Vista. Other than a firewall and a bluetooth driver when Vista was first released, I have yet to encounter an application that does not work on my 64 bit OS. The mythical "application that does not work in 64 bit Vista" has yet to show up within the last year of using it. All of my 32 bit applications currently work with no complaints. I don't think about my OS being 64 bit when I buy software anymore.

In addition, finding hardware is easy: I just look for the (works with/certified for) Windows Vista logo. That tells me that Microsoft has checked the drivers for certain minimum requirements, which include making sure that that 64 bit drivers are available. In addition, hardware manufacturers have been doing a great job getting their drivers out. My bluetooth device now has real drivers rather than hackish workarounds. So all of my hardware, including some rather old stuff, now has 64 bit drivers and I can confidently say that compatibility is really no longer an issue.

MrBlackWar: You completely do not understand the situation. You do not need 64 bit applications to take advantage of 64 bit computing. Even 32 bit applications can benefit if you have several of them running at the same time.

Let's say I have two 32 bit applications, and each one uses 3 GB of memory. I can't run both of them at the same time in a 32 bit OS, since I can't have 6 GB of memory on a 32 bit system. But I can run both of them at the same time in a 64 bit OS with 6 or more GB of memory. I benefit from having a 64 bit OS even if I'm just running 32 bit applications.

Every time there is a new Version of Windows there is a small crowd saying, "yay, I'm looking forward to THIS version!  Its going to be everything the LAST version wasn't"

Maybe I'm old and cynical, or maybe I've seen this statement every time there is a new windows...   from 3 to 95, 98, 2000...  and thats just the Desktop versions...  I finally gave up at XP.  Anyway I'm not going to argue with people on the internet.  Suffice it to say, XP wasn't everything it was cracked up to be.  Vista, well do I need to say anything?  I'm not holding my breath for "Windows 7".

Okay, I have to get a dig in...  Stardock and Ironclad, can you guys start publishing on Mac as well?  They have the Lions Share of the Notebook Market, and if you look at retail sales only, they have 15% of the market.  That and I wouldn't have to dual boot anymore!!!    

Snazzed

Shelbygt - the 32 bit compatibility is directly from the microchips. It's not something that is emulated at a software level. When a 64 bit OS wants to run a 32 bit application, it just tells the hardware to run it in 32 bit mode. This is why there are virtually no troubles running 32 bit software in a 64 bit OS.

As I've said, I've yet to encounter this mythical 32 bit application that does not work with my 64 bit OS within the last year of using this OS.

That's a bit understandable - mobile software is often slow to update, and seems to frequently get abandoned by the authors.

That being said, I updated DataViz's Documents to Go software on my device, and it supports the new Office 2007 formats nicely .

You claim to be testing a new version of Office specifically designed for 64 bit? I am unaware of this - is this for real, or is this something theoretical?

Why, to keep you more interested in your next computer than you are in the one in front of you

at my last position we upgraded to office 2007. after first i hated the ribbon, but now i sort of miss it. i don't like the ribbon in and of itself, but now that i've been there and back again, it is a bit easier to use than the Office 2003 interface.

amen.

i enjoyed your comments on memory. i'm in a bit of a bind right now, myself.  i've got 2GB of RAM and a 512MB graphics card. the thing is, i'm looking to upgrade to a 4870X2, which has a total of 2GB of memory itself (though for all intents and purposes it's cut in half, as is the case with any X2 graphics solution). if i stick with a 32-bit OS, i'll likely only be able to address 1.5 GB of regular RAM, and that's not counting the impact a secondary graphics card will have (for running a third monitor).

i want to upgrade, but i really don't want to deal with Vista. i could get 64-bit XP pro, but it seems like a waste to buy a new copy of XP at this point in time. but on the other hand, it's frustrating to want to upgrade and need to account for the OS in the process. i hate to play the waiting game on an OS that's still pretty far off.

thinking about a Core i7 rig? they won't be able to hit 16 GB until there are 4GB DDR3 sticks, but considering it features triple channel memory, 12 GB is still pretty good.

curse you! where do you go? maybe i'll apply to grad school there.

The sad thing is I know why it's so inconsistent. It's because Microsoft decided to merge Program Manager and File Manager way back in Windows 95, and they have been fighting over which way is the best way to view and manage the file system structure ever since.

Frankly, they should have stayed as separate applications and should not have been merged.

Every time they tweak the shell now, they make it worse.

Here are some of my observations:

• They are fighting over "expected behavior during launch." When I hit Win+E, I expect a File Manager like interface. When I launch from an icon on my desktop, I expect a Program Manager like interface. Unfortunately, now that they are "merged" they act like folders rather than separate applications.
  
• They are trying to make windows change their behavior so that it's folder based. This is instead of the alternative they were using earlier, where a window always stayed the same regardless of which folder you were displaying. I hate this. My window should never ever ever "morph" into something different. It drives me especially crazy in Vista when my hierarchy disappears because I've opened my documents.
  
• There is an eternal fight between using one window for managing files and multiple windows. I prefer the one window approach. Maybe two windows if I need to move or copy files between two locations - but I certainly do not want a dozen windows cluttering my screen.
• This is probably also the result of some "vision" to get rid of the file hierarchy. Nevermind that there was never anything wrong with the hierarchy, it just didn't fit into their plan, so they're trying to shove this new system down our throats.

More than anything this is probably some sort of internal battle over which direction the Windows shell should take in the future. I pray Windows 7 fixes this, and that we don't continue this battle in future versions of Windows.

From what I've heard, the Office team that helped create the ribbon UI is involved in the shell now, and I hope they realize what a big mess this whole thing is. I hope they come up with a better solution, because right now the Windows shell is just horrible. Too many conflicting visions of which direction they want to take it in the future.

I wouldn't recommend 64 bit XP. Hardware manufacturers never really accepted it; you are unlikely to find many drivers for it. Vista is a much better choice for 64 bit computing.

Lets hope they fix or delete all the broke crap before adding more broke new crap.