Next version of Windows

[y2kman]

Hi folks

When is the next major release of Windows coming out and the price if available yet?

I understand it will replace the new file system with WinFS [Windows Future Storage]

Is this true and it is official for 06?

Also will XP be updated any further till then?

Also any good details on Yukon and Longhorn?

Thanks
Dave

[DragonNOA1]

Someone else can post all the details about it but I can't believe you missed them all. Where have you been? Anywho, from what I've heard the next OS should last us at least 5 years. That's the plan at least. A new OS every 5 years.

[Panama Red]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx

[als814]

Was the filing system NTFS of windows NT/2k/Xp what made those OS's more stable over the FAT32 OS', or was it just general improvements?

[Statica]

Originally Posted by als814 Was the filing system NTFS of windows NT/2k/Xp what made those OS's more stable over the FAT32 OS', or was it just general improvements?

A little from Column A and a lot from Column B. The 2 major improvements for XP were the use of the NT kernel and in the use of NTFS. Fat32 had become a liability to the stability of the OS as well; NTFS has correct most of the drawbacks of the FATx file systems, as well as has improved upon itself throughout the generations of OS using it.

[als814]

Could this new filing system that will come with windows Vista mess this up, or is it more likely that it will be even better?

[y2kman]

It always turns out better but at the expense of the user. Would be nice if we had some input but it all means $$$

Many folks still use and need older file systems and so today many have more than once PC.

Dave

[Statica]

Theorotically - much better! Can't really assume that Microsoft execs are sitting out there saying "Gentleman, our NTFS plan came together nicely, now let's bring something out that messes is all up" . The problem of having a filesystem that supports the large volumes that we're seeing today is just half the battle, a good file system must also be able to allow you to search through the entire storage area effectively... often beyond just simple filenames. WinFS is touted to provide solutions for that as well. WinFS is loosely based around NTFS, but takes it a step further by using relational databases to catalog and retrieve the information for you. Also WinFS will also probably be ported back to XP as well.

[Statica]

Originally Posted by y2kman It always turns out better but at the expense of the user. Would be nice if we had some input but it all means $$$ Many folks still use and need older file systems and so today many have more than once PC. Dave

You really cannot stop progress just because we have all got used to a method of using things. And it isn't the storage world that we once had. It used to be that storage space was very finite; most people could count the number of files that they created or used, because storage space was expensive and people didn't have oodles of space just lying around. As you can well imagine, the terrain is rapidly changing to the point where it is quite likely that people are going to lose track of what they've stored and where they've stored it. You need to be able to effectively get to the information you are looking for. For example, images .. currently (without any 3rd party software involvement), all you have to go by for searching an image is a filename .. forget that and you're lost! A good search method would now allow you to search within the EXIF data and allow you to search out, when the shot was taken, who the author was etc.

Addendum: I use the whole Gmail philosophy to underline what it means to be able to move into the GB regions for email. So long, we really didn't need email because they were entirely useless from the standpoint of effective storage and searches. Gmail has in fact changed it all. I can sift through about 3mb of my (non-attachment) email with ease and actually find the email that I was looking for.

And regarding people requiring multiple PC's to keep up with legacy filesystems? I am not aware of that limitation .. Microsoft does provide complete support for it's older filesystems! So I cannot fathom the need for keeping older files on older FS'.

[kev7555]

Hmmm....

Kind of "off the subject" but the comments about older file systems got me thinking...

One of my old work boxes is still running 98 SE. It's only 450 MHz and seems to run nearly as fast as my newer AMD Athlon 2500+ (well, not AS fast but reasonably fast). That's why I never switched it to XP. It also has a stability that I never experienced with most 9X systems. Why mess with success?

I've often wondered what hardware wonders cause this machine to run so smoothly when others of higher processing speed can't keep up with it.

A customer gave it to me along with three other computers of similar caliber when he was upgrading his office. Best free computer I've ever owned.


-Kev

[Statica]

Is the other box (Athlon) running XP?

[kev7555]

XP Pro, 40 GB Western Digital drive, !20 GB W. D. slave, Abit miniboard, AMD Athlon 2500+, 512 RAM, Pioneer DVD Burner, MSI 52X CD burner.

The 98 SE box has good RAM for such an old machine. I plopped two 128 cards in it for a total of 256. It's running a Pentium II 450 MHz and all of the original Hardware that came with it except for the HD (40 GB).

[Statica]

To be quite honest kev7555 it's like comparing apples to oranges. Your comparison is based on 2 different base operating systems that have entire different capabilities. The question is does your Win98 box have nearly the same level of capabilities as the XP box? The answer is no. For a true comparison of speed, you would have to load Win 98 on the Athlon box and see how much faster it runs. Or load XP on the P2, and see how much slower it runs.

Which is actually illustrates how sometimes among all the Mhz and the listing of parts, people tend to forget to see if a machine is adequate. They also seem to forget that at the speeds we're talking, it's all just a number - the differences in systems should be measured by what they can and cannot do vs. trying to humanly quantify speeds (my Athlon 2100+ is about about 2.532 seconds slower than the Athlon 2500+). For example, it isn't that the Win98 loads up just as fast that should be the reason for you staying with XP, but that it (hopefully) does everything you need. However, there are times when people need to upgrade - like better software or hardware support etc. For example, say you needed to load up Office 2003, your "fast enough" Win98 box would come up short.

[y2kman]

Static MS do not provide complete support in terms of backwardz compatibility for their file system.

Many many folks run XP with their older music midi gears and their computers, that are only capable of handling 720k disks.

XP cannot format 720k disks, so unless you know of a way I sure will like to know. You have to go hunting for 3rd party software to handle the formatting problem. I do not know of any other way but if anyone can help out there especially on how to do this in Windoze XP, then great. Please let us know. We will greatly appreciate it.

Some folks still use Win98/XP on the same machine not only for the floppy disk problem but also if they are using older apps that can only be run under 98. Or simply run 98 on a second machine.

Not everyone can 1. afford newer software. 2. Can find the apps they have come to know and master in their trade.

I know someone that still use a DOS music app for the sole purpose of his condition. He is disabled and cannot handle all that mouse action in Windoze. Any help for him would be highly appreciated.

I won't doubt that there are others out there with problems like these and who knows what else?

Dave

[Statica]

Originally Posted by y2kman Many many folks run XP with their older music midi gears and their computers, that are only capable of handling 720k disks. XP cannot format 720k disks, so unless you know of a way I sure will like to know. You have to go hunting for 3rd party software to handle the formatting problem. I do not know of any other way but if anyone can help out there especially on how to do this in Windoze XP, then great. Please let us know. We will greatly appreciate it. Dave

Umm .. have you tried:

PHP Code:

format a: /t:80 /n:9 /x /fs:FAT 


parameters:
t: number of tracks/side
n: number of sectors/track
x: force XP to dismount the drive before format
fs: filesystem .. options are FAT, FAT32 or NTFS

AFAIK XP's CLI simply doesn't have the automatic /f:720 option; but these variables should work. Let me know if it doesn't...

[y2kman]

Hi Statica

That seems to work ok. I have yet to try some labeled floppies. I only tried one so far with no label transferring files back & fort.

I doubt it will present a problem however.

I am already sharing this with the rest of the community.

I did a few searches on this issue but could not come up with anything.

Everyone kept saying this was not possible.

Your help is greatly appreciated and I am sure the gang will also thank you for it.

Thanks a million!
Dave

[Statica]

What do you mean by "label"? Do u mean the volume label? You could specify a volume label by using:

PHP Code:

format a: /t:80 /n:9 /fs:FAT /V:y2kman 


for example.

The thing is that there are way more options to compatibility than meets the eye; this is true not just of WinXP but nearly every OS. I would urge you to check out the options for formatting that are available to you. Type format /? for options.

[y2kman]

By label I meant the floppy disk label. i.e. 720k DD/DS, 1D/SS etc.

Been a while since I checked out DOS. Will do.

Thanks Again
Dave