They named it Windows 11. So i'm expecting that and more from a newer version: a radical cut with the past, not the same story as Windows 10. Otherwise they could have named it windows 10.1.
Windows 10 was released in 2015 and is starting to feel like a dinosaur, moving the branding to Windows 11 makes more sense vs 10.1 IMO
It doesn't make the slightest sense to call it that, if it's not a new OS but just a marketing fool. This story has been going on since 6 years, and it's not over yet. Plus they are the unique company to manage the own OS development in this way...the unique. I have never seen any other OS so full of inconsistencies and duplicates in my life.
They knew anyways someone was going to do that, so they backpelled and said they're going to give Direct Storage to Win10 too I will look for the link of the news site i saw that, i lost it.
At the risk of being slightly off topic, one of the biggest selling points of Windows is its backwards compatibility and long native support. Even with ditching the 32-bit versions, they only remove 16-bit app support because most of the OS is built around the idea of supporting both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. If you were going to design an operating system from scratch, you would not design it like Windows. You only stumble your way into becoming like Windows by realizing that customers demand backward compatibility above all else. People want to run the latest and greatest, but they also want to run the oldest and moldiest. I bet you could cut Windows 11 down to under a gig if you only supported 64bit software, and that's without cutting any actual features.
On x64 Windows there's a file "ntvdm64.dll" what is this file? Does it have anything to do with actual NTVDM?
Never a wiser word spoken. Simply put, I find it unbelievable that M$ would design a system, then release it with a heap of bugs that any boffin in M$ would have naturally seen and ironed out in the first few days. Imagine if car manufacturers did this, "here is your car, got a few bugs, tell us what you find"
32-bit machines are really close to the total disposal. Now every performance category (from low to high-end) offers 64-bit support. IMHO they could easily cut the support on Win11 and leave it on Win10.
Windows as a service kernel and build numbers no longer have much significance and it's less chance to break compatibility when you keep it consistent p.s. Windows 11 category for Windows Update Code: RevisionID: 34709744 UpdateID: 72E7624A-5B00-45D2-B92F-E561C0A6A160 Applicability Rules: b.WindowsVersion Comparison="EqualTo" MajorVersion="10" MinorVersion="0" ProductType="1"
Yep more matter of semantic here. What I mean is that MS took the excuse of not having the support @cpu level to ditch the 16bit support. They didn't want to invest time to emulate it. But if the 16+32+64 bit thing was supported by the CPU be sure they didn't bother to remove it.
Please open your mind a bit. There are not just physical machines. on a Hyper-V server ten 64 bit machines takes the same storage of 16 32bit machines, the same is true for the RAM usage. In fully virtualized offices, where 32 bit machines are perfectly fine, moving to 64bit is just a waste of money resources and energy (and last but not least a contribution to the planet pollution and weather warming)