On 12/30/06, Kevin Cully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Louderback was interviewing Jim Allchin about Vista. Allchin stated > "It's preordained that we are moving to 64 bits. I cannot predict how > long it will take, but we will get there." Louderback reports that > Allchin believes "that with Vista, the time is now." Okay. I'm confused. > Are we now at 64 bits or not with Vista?
Yes. > Are all of the driver manufacturers delivering 64 bit versions? Be serious. > Louderback goes on speaking with Allchin about IPv6. Louderback states > "Why go IPv6? Better quality of service, better connectivity, and the > death of NAT." Is the death of NAT a good thing? I wouldn't want all of > my machines to have a public IP address and be addressable from the > outside world. This puts too great a of a burden on my firewall. NAT is > a great tool (one of many) in protecting my machines from attack. Is > there something that is going to take it's place? The death of NAT is a good thing for anyone who's had to jump a couple of NATs for remote control, or wrestled with VPN configurations. It will likely require new hardware, though. Allchin is in the commercial world, the enterprise space where hardware turnover is the norm, and where high-end routers have been IPv6 for years. I doubt a lot of consumer-grade equipment is similarly capable, though I don't know for sure. IPv6 will be great when the transition is complete. > Looking deeper into the magazine we have to differing opinions from > Michael J. Miller and Bill Machrone. Miller states "Though long overdue, > Vista offers some impressive features. The graphics finally takes > advantage of the hardware that most PCs have had for quite some time." Like OS X and Linux XGL have been doing for a while? > The very next page (after the Matrox advertisement) Machrone states > "Don't upgrade to Vista – Buy a new computer instead. To get all the > performance that Vista has to offer, chances are somewhere between good > and excellent that the system now on your desk isn't going to deliver." Isn't it likely that both are true? Windows has not taken advantage of 3-D and that's been available for a long time. Lots of things have come along since core elements were re-written for XP or 2000 or NT (depending on the age of the particular component). So an "optimal" Vista machine may need common components and new ones - and lots and lots of RAM and CPU! > It feels like Vista is targeted for a machine > that isn't on the mass market. That's been typical of Microsoft. > Who wants to run Vista on a machine that > was designed for high-end gamers? Today's high-end gamer machine is next month's lamer. > It feels like we're in a "tweener" stage here. We're moving away from XP > and the $1K hardware, and moving into an area where we're not going to > be happy with hardware and OS performance for a year or so to come. I'm not sure that's really all that different. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
