Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th May 2007 14:58 UTC, submitted by danwarne
Windows "It's the end of the line for 32-bit operating systems, Microsoft has proclaimed at its annual Windows Hardware Engineering conference After the software giant has gotten over its hangover from partying like it's 1999 with the release of Windows Server 2008, it will have one last 32-bit hurrah with a 'release 2' update to Windows Server 2008, and that'll be it. 32 bit CPU: if you have one, learn to love Vista - you're stuck with it.There will be no more versions of Windows - on desktop or server - that will work on 32-bit CPUs like Pentium 4 or Core Duo."
Order by: Score:
Dumb
by Excel Hearts Choi on Thu 17th May 2007 15:20 UTC
Excel Hearts Choi
Member since:
2006-07-08

How does the average user benefit from being forced to use a 64 bit machine? Just like somebody said in the quad core AMD article, this will not help 99.9% of desktop users. It is not just MS that is doing this either. As a linux user, I would say that there is feature creep that is just worthless.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dumb
by Maners on Thu 17th May 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
Maners Member since:
2005-07-26

Not so dumb, existing 32bit CPUs barely can handle Vista and when next version of Windows comes out those CPUs will be way too weak to run it. By then, all newly manufactured CPUs will already have 64bit extensions and 32bi-only CPUs won't be available.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Dumb
by diegocg on Thu 17th May 2007 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Not so dumb, existing 32bit CPUs barely can handle Vista

All the x86 64 bit CPUs can run any 32 bit operative system just fine. That includes the quad cores.

It's not lack of power what will stop 32 bits. It'll be, more likely, the limited address space and the need of using the PAE crap to use more than 4 gb of ram.

Microsoft does this to force people to migrate to 64 bits. This will force hardware companies to start making more 64-bit drivers, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by Excel Hearts Choi on Thu 17th May 2007 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
Excel Hearts Choi Member since:
2006-07-08

Yes, but what features does Vista bring to the table? The new security and memory usage features (other features just don't seem so useful to me) should not mandate the inability to smoothly run on a 32 bit machine. To me, there is no logical reason as to why we have to have a 64 bit processor. Poor coding and design cause the OS to slow down when this does not have to be the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Dumb
by CPUGuy on Thu 17th May 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

... I run Vista on an Athlon XP 2800+.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Dumb
by flywheel on Fri 18th May 2007 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
flywheel Member since:
2005-12-28

Haven't you seen the ads ?
Vista brings the Wauw-effect to your desktop!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Dumb
by macro on Thu 17th May 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
macro Member since:
2005-07-27

existing 32bit CPUs barely can handle Vista and when next version of Windows comes out those CPUs will be way too weak to run it


Correction:

"Vista can barely run on existing 32 bit CPUs and the next version that comes out will be way too bloated to run on them."

The problem is that windows is a bloated piece of crap, not that current 32 bit processors are "weak". And, as others have noted, it's unfortunately not a windows-only problem anymore.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Dumb
by Henrik on Fri 18th May 2007 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
Henrik Member since:
2006-01-03

Exactly, it's not a windows problem, every version of windows I've used, from 3.1 to XP, has had a much more responsive feel in its UI than any KDE or Gnome based Linux distribution I've tried, so far.

And most important, the XP version of Windows (like a few newer distibutions) finally reduced the very unpractical and unacceptable boot times of earlier versions, on normal hardware. (and yes, you are supposed to turn the computer off when it's not used...)

I don't like MS much, but they certainly seems to pay much more attention to detailed optimization and fine-tuning than does most of the Linux community.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Dumb
by RawMustard on Fri 18th May 2007 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dumb"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

My Xp running on a core 2 Duo E6600 with 4 gig of ram and an nvidia 8800gtx gpu runs like a dog compared to Ubuntu Feisty 32 bit and feisty 64bit is even faster and smoother. I admit that the Gnome desktop is a monkeyMono infested pig, but Nautilus on feisty leaves explorer in it's dust!

As far boot times go, I have no background tasks in windows other than the regular firewall and av crap-ware, but I have several apps loading in Ubuntu. I'm up and running and on my first website in Ubuntu before i even get a login screen in XP and you know how long windows desktop takes to be usable, so I'd be finished reading my first osnews article before I can open the start menu in XP. XP is a dog compared to new Linux distro's and vista, well I won't even bother going there, it'd take way toooo long ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Dumb
by Gzzy on Fri 18th May 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dumb"
Gzzy Member since:
2005-11-21

Vista actually boots much faster than XP on my machine and from the hybrid sleep state
(which is the default for "off" now) it boots ridiculously fast. And the desktop in Vista is usable as soon as it appears unlike XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Dumb
by keith.unix on Sat 19th May 2007 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
keith.unix Member since:
2007-05-08

Yes, windows is a bloated piece, and kde is a little bloated, but you can also choose, which desktop you can run, or run nothing at all, with a linux/bsd distro.

How many different desktops can you choose from for windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEPIS

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Dumb
by jokinin on Thu 17th May 2007 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
jokinin Member since:
2005-11-07

what?
I still remember my 32 bit AthlonXP 2800+. I sold that to a friend, now it has 1GB of RAM and is very capable of running Vista. And with an upgrade to 2GB would run it fast indeed, because that was a very good performing 32 bit CPU.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by helf on Thu 17th May 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

...existing 32bit CPUs barely can handle Vista and when next version of Windows comes out those CPUs will be way too weak to run it.

hahahahaha... Thanks for the laugh!

It's sad that CPUs that can run any other OS perfectly fine and are capable of billion of operations per second are having a hard time running Vista...

Isn't it awesome how as hardware gets faster, software seems to stay about the same speed?

"Hey, are hardwarie twice as fast now! let tacks on MORE useless garbage noone needs instead of making our software faster!" "also, RAM is cheap!"

*sigh* My pc 10 years ago about took about 50 seconds to boot, my current pc thats probably a few thousand times faster takes.. oh.. 40 seconds to boot up and doesn't do much more than the other one, really.

:(

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Dumb
by helf on Thu 17th May 2007 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

wow, I need to proof read. Please ignore the weird grammar/spelling errors. I'm still half asleep ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Dumb
by Kroc on Thu 17th May 2007 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I agree very much. Back in 2000 I had a top end rig, PIII 1.13GHz, 192 MB RAM (The standard was 32MB then) and a Voodoo 5, all running Windows 98. That was probably the fastest machine I've ever used. Windows took 20 seconds to boot, MSWord opened instantly, no splash, from cold.

Not even with a customised XP install could I get my later, P4-2.8GHz, 1.5GB VAIO to boot in under 45 seconds. MSWord, always took at least 4 seconds to load.

The only way I managed to get back some speed from my hardware was to switch to a Mac, the thought of going to Vista was far too horrible. If anything, software has been getting slower, quicker than hardware has been getting faster.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Dumb
by suryad on Thu 17th May 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dumb"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Reading your post I just booted my laptop. 22 seconds including post. This is a tweaked XP. Next please.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Dumb
by helf on Thu 17th May 2007 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dumb"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

wow, what a nice, smart, rebuttal. Thanks. I feel Kroc and I definitely wrong now!

wowzer!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Dumb
by siimo on Thu 17th May 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Mostly likely because the size of OS has grown and mechanical hard drive speeds haven't kept up with the rest of the speed increases. Surely your current HDD isn't a few thousand times faster than your old PC.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by shadow303 on Thu 17th May 2007 15:38 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
shadow303 Member since:
2005-06-29

If there will be any "forcing" involved, it will be from the likes of AMD and Intel. This decision seems like a no brainer for Microsoft - by the time they release a new OS (several years down the road), it's likely that all of the computers sold to your average household will be 64 bit. If that is true, then there really isn't much incentive for MS to support 32 bit machines (the people with the old 32 bit machines are likely to be the same people who only get a new version of Windows by buying a new computer).

As far as the 99% argument goes - that's just life. Some people do benefit from the improvement, and it isn't really fair to expect the industry to either hold back or double their support costs in order to cater to the hold-outs.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Dumb
by re_re on Thu 17th May 2007 15:39 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

The main thing (for current applications) is the use of the added registers which does make things run a little more efficiently. Also, with things moving the direction they are (bigger more bloated everything) soon 4 gb of ram and beyond will be necessary for a lot of things.

While I am not all that fond of Microsoft, i do understand this move. Quite simply, they do not want to have to maintain 32 and 64 bit compatability, it is much cheaper to stick with one and they are going to move to the future (64) instead of sticking to the past (32).

Many major linux distros are slowly pushing this as well, but in a much less drastic way. The bottom line is simply that based on the way software is being made now, soon 4 gb+ of ram will be necessary.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by Laurence on Thu 17th May 2007 15:41 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

How does the average user benefit from being forced to use a 64 bit machine?
"

64bit machines are already common place. Plus by the time Vista's successor is released, i'd say the hardware would be so cheap and widely used on users desktops that it would be pointless programming a 32bit kernel. Seems like a perfectly sensible decision to me.

Besides - if you want to get into a "will desktop users benefit" argument then most users wont benefit from upgrading XP to Vista, so what makes you think the next version of Windows will offer a significant benefit to Vista users?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Dumb
by Almafeta on Thu 17th May 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Well, Microsoft has to move with the industry. The processor industry has decided to finally break into 64 bits en masse, and by the time that the next major home version of Windows comes out (I'd guess around 2011 or 2012), there just won't be any 32-bit processors available outside of used ones.

I can give an example from my own experience: the processor in my desktop at home, I purchased because it was fast enough (2Ghz) and it was dirt cheap (<$50). I didn't even know that it was a dual-core 64-bit processor until I installed it. When El Cheapo Processors, Inc., starts releasing multi-core 64-bit processors, it's easy to see that that's the way the market is headed, and Microsoft's just getting ready to move with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by joelito_pr on Thu 17th May 2007 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

So, was it sempron or celeron?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Dumb
by flywheel on Fri 18th May 2007 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Dumb"
flywheel Member since:
2005-12-28

Well, Microsoft has to move with the industry.


Well actually it is the industry that moves with MS, since they control the mass acception of the industry products.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dumb
by anevilyak on Thu 17th May 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

It's not as simple as needing more RAM, address space is much more crucial. Even without having 2GB or so of physical RAM in the system, you still have to account for the fact that you have to map things like graphics card RAM, etc. into the virtual address space. As this gets increasingly larger, the 32-bit address space gets more and more crowded which can also result in not being able to effectively use the RAM you have. A 64-bit address space would allow all of that memory mapped hardware to be handled much more cleanly. That's not even counting that in the case of x86-64 you also have extra visible registers and such.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by kaiwai on Fri 18th May 2007 02:34 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

How does the average user benefit from being forced to use a 64 bit machine? Just like somebody said in the quad core AMD article, this will not help 99.9% of desktop users. It is not just MS that is doing this either. As a linux user, I would say that there is feature creep that is just worthless.


Based on what? if you have a 64bit operating system, and you compile your software on the 64bit operating system, but it is still 32bit, you get all the benefits of long mode, which include firstly, a huge number of registers for instance.

Don't look at '64bit', but instead, look at what the 64bit cpu features bring to computers - it isn't just going to benefit Microsoft, it will also benefit Linux, OpenSolaris and numerous other operating systems. There is more to 64bit cpus besides nit integers and address spaces.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dumb
by viton on Fri 18th May 2007 11:23 UTC in reply to "Dumb"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

How does the average user benefit from being forced to use a 64 bit machine?
Well, the next Windows version will require 10GB of ram and 1GB+ videocard just to run notepad.

Anyway, i did the transition to 64bit 3 years ago.
And i don't bother about the Windows future either, because i use Linux ;)

Reply Score: 1

cool
by deanlinkous on Thu 17th May 2007 15:27 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

Linux is on more 32bit desktops in the future!

Reply Score: 5

RE: cool
by PJBonoVox on Fri 18th May 2007 10:26 UTC in reply to "cool"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

No, Windows Vista, XP & 2000 will still be preferable to Linux. Nice pipe-dream for you Linux lovers though.

Reply Score: 0

I've heard this before
by abraxas on Thu 17th May 2007 15:30 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Microsoft promised the same thing for XP at one time but now not only do we have a 32-bit version of Vista, it is the most commonly pre-installed version of Vista. Backwards compatibility strikes again. Personally I think backwards compatibility just keeps you from moving forward.

Reply Score: 5

Silly
by Ben Jao Ming on Thu 17th May 2007 15:37 UTC
Ben Jao Ming
Member since:
2005-07-26

What's the big deal about compiling their software for 32bit? I mean, doesn't their compiler handle most of this through a single compiling option and *some* manual tweaking!? If they're such a big and well-organized software producer, they must surely know how to maintain software for different architectures.

As I see it, this is just some fuzz created to ensure that demand for new hardware and software keeps a high level - an unnecessarily forced incitement for replacing computers and operating systems in the future. Somehow most of Microsoft's innovations lie in the systems requirements department.

Edited 2007-05-17 15:40

Reply Score: 4

RE: Silly
by Marcellus on Fri 18th May 2007 06:21 UTC in reply to "Silly"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

On the application level you probably don't have to do much to support both 32 and 64 bit. Depends entirely on what you do though.

But on the system level it's not that simple.

There always comes a point when it's simply not worth supporting an older generation any more.

And it's not like the drop 32 bit OS's NOW... That's something that is still 3-4 years in the future...

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Thu 17th May 2007 15:38 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft are going to have to do some almighty clever coding for backwards compatibility, because the software industry - born and raised on a platform where writing wonky code is good enough - is only going to come along kicking and screaming.

Only a few days ago, I found out about how the Lexmark printer driver adds a dependency to the spool server for their component, meaning that it is nearly impossible to uninstall the lexmark print driver fully, without disabling all printing capability on the machine. It's naff programming like this, that means that Microsoft have no hopes of enforcing any major change on the market anymore.

The market has already 'balked' at Vista, drivers are way behind date and in "beta" state. If the next OS is even worse, then there will come a time when the industry just puts its foot down and says No.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by sukru on Thu 17th May 2007 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Microsoft are going to have to do some almighty clever coding for backwards compatibility, because the software industry - born and raised on a platform where writing wonky code is good enough - is only going to come along kicking and screaming.


I guess they're dropping backward compatibility in the os alltogether, but use virtualization to support older software instead.

If this ever happens, we'll be finally getting rid of many strange Win32 API functions, which stay there only because some obscure program need it.

It will be a good thing. Even some game studios deliver their "classic" packs with DOSBox. Virtualization seems to be the best of two worlds (backward compatibility and progress).

(And finally we have the ability to quote replies in OsNews)

Reply Score: 2

When is the next version of Windows due?
by A.H. on Thu 17th May 2007 15:40 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

If it will take them another 5 years to develop Windows Basta (or whatever other ridiculous name MS marketing department will come up with) then I guess the decision does make some sense since 32-bit systems will be quite obsolete by than.

Reply Score: 5

Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

LOL. Windows Basta? watch out buddy, you maybe modded down for near profanity. Don't worry, you have a vote from me:)

MS could use 2 letter names, it's so cool. So Windows BS more like fits the bill.

Reply Score: 1

sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

"Windows Basta"

Ha haaaa! Funnier in Spanish, and not at all profane. But it perfectly expresses my sentiments for Windows- "Ya basta!"

Reply Score: 2

Doesn't matter
by Silent_Seer on Thu 17th May 2007 15:41 UTC
Silent_Seer
Member since:
2007-04-06

When MS releases an OS, one has to buy a new PC anyway to use it. All new processors (for desktop) are 64 bit (with 32 bit support)and the current Mac OSX is 64 bit as well. So this is to be expected.

And there is nothing to worry about for 32 bit users, presuming that they will continue to use the same processors in 4 years time when MS releases a new wondows. Linux and OSS is always there. Heck there is something for you even if you still use or own a 16 bit x86 PC- FreeDOS, or even a 8 bit Z80- SymbOS. Longlive OSS!

Edited 2007-05-17 15:48

Reply Score: 2

Not a big deal
by fretinator on Thu 17th May 2007 15:44 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I would estimate the next version of Windows as coming out around 2010. For the next three years the industry will be cranking out 64-bit computers. So what's the problem? Do you really think 3 years from now we will be wanting to run Windows (if one was so inclined!) on 3-4 year old computers?? Seriously, folks.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not a big deal
by asdx24 on Thu 17th May 2007 17:10 UTC in reply to "Not a big deal"
asdx24 Member since:
2007-05-17

by that time windows is going to be irrelevant and there will be more linux users than windows users, so this is not a big deal, yeah

Reply Score: 1

This is actually good news
by jsgotangco on Thu 17th May 2007 15:53 UTC
jsgotangco
Member since:
2005-10-04

At least the rest of the technology world can move forward. This is not entirely about Windows even but with general computing technology moving as needed.

Reply Score: 1

VMWare supports 64-bit Windows on 32-bit
by mbpark on Thu 17th May 2007 15:53 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

Hello,

VMWare does (http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/new.html) support 64-bit guest operating systems on a 32-bit environment.

This is an opportunity for VMWare to sell a low-end version of their product to people looking to run Windows Server 2008 R2+ or Windows Vista R2+ on their 32-bit hardware. It's not going to be much of a market, but it'll be there for Windows and Linux.

And yes, the other side is true. There will still be 16-bit and 32-bit code running at that time which will not run in 64-bit Windows that will require 32-bit Windows to still be utilized in some form.

This is really good news for VMWare, in other words. They can now market themselves as providing a necessary legacy asset for running older Windows code.

Microsoft's enterprise contracts allow "downgrade" rights, so you (as long as you buy the license) can run older versions of the software.

Then again, with things going the way they are with Microsoft, I could see a lot of those 32-bit "legacy" systems running on top of 64-bit Linux or OS X.

Reply Score: 3

GatoLoko Member since:
2005-11-13

VMWare support 32-bits guest under 64-bits hosts, but not 64-bits guests under 32-bits host (even when the cpu supports 64-bits).

The only way to support 64-bits under 32-bits hosts is emulation, and VMWare doesn't do this.

Reply Score: 1

joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

VMWare will not run a 64 bit guest OS on a 32-bit CPU. It will however run a 64-bit guest OS, on a 32-bit host OS, if the CPU is 64 bit. Believe me, I've done it - installed 64-bit Linux under Windows XP (32-bit).

This also says it can be done: http://download3.vmware.com/vmworld/2005/pac346.pdf

Reply Score: 1

error in news
by casuto on Thu 17th May 2007 16:07 UTC
casuto
Member since:
2007-02-27

there's a bug in this news because Core Duo is a 64bit CPU

Reply Score: 2

RE: error in news
by abraxas on Thu 17th May 2007 16:19 UTC in reply to "error in news"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

there's a bug in this news because Core Duo is a 64bit CPU

No, that is correct. The Core Duo is 32-bit. The Core 2 duo is 64-bit.

Reply Score: 4

So what?
by Jawbreaker4Fs on Thu 17th May 2007 16:10 UTC
Jawbreaker4Fs
Member since:
2006-05-11

By the time Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows in like 8 years we'll all have 64-bit processors anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So what?
by WarpKat on Thu 17th May 2007 16:28 UTC in reply to "So what?"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

I'm banking on 128-bit CPU's...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: So what?
by DigitalAxis on Thu 17th May 2007 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: So what?"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Nah, that's 2^7 and 7's an odd number. My money's on 256-bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So what?
by Obscurus on Fri 18th May 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So what?"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Oh, don't be silly, lets just skip ahead to 1024 bit processors ;) 2^10 is a nice round number.

Reply Score: 1

32-bits...
by WarpKat on Thu 17th May 2007 16:27 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

...ought to be enough for everybody...

Reply Score: 4

There's still a bug
by tbcpp on Thu 17th May 2007 16:30 UTC
tbcpp
Member since:
2006-02-06

there's a bug in this news because Core Duo is a 64bit CPU

No, that is correct. The Core Duo is 32-bit. The Core 2 duo is 64-bit.


Actually he was right and wrong. There is an error in the article, but it's not about the core. The late model Pentium 4s were 64-bit.

Reply Score: 2

The future.
by systyrant on Thu 17th May 2007 16:38 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

As others have pointed out 64bit processors will be the only kind of processor you can get on your new PC and continuing to support 32bit isn't a very good business idea in the future. It's my understanding that the majority of Vista sales are going to be OEM sales and not retail sales. Most OEM's are going to be selling 64bit and not 32bit. So to me it makes since that the next version of Windows is going to be 64bit only.

I figure that if software developers continued to support old hardware just because people don't want to or can't afford to buy newer hardware we'd still be in the stone age. Progress always leaves somebody behind. That is life.

Reply Score: 2

if i remember well
by jokinin on Thu 17th May 2007 16:47 UTC
jokinin
Member since:
2005-11-07

latest pentium 4 with hyperthreading and based on later prescott core, do support 64 bits software (i think it is called EMT64, mostly compatible with AMD64 instuctions)

Reply Score: 1

RE: if i remember well
by antik on Thu 17th May 2007 16:59 UTC in reply to "if i remember well"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

latest pentium 4 with hyperthreading and based on later prescott core, do support 64 bits software (i think it is called EMT64, mostly compatible with AMD64 instuctions)

It's called Intel64 now: http://www.intel.com/info/em64t/

My Pentium 4 model 640 got 32/64 bit instructions sets and I can run on it Windows XP, Vista, FreeBSD i386, FreeBSD AMD64, Apple OS X, Solaris, you name it...

Reply Score: 2

Nice, more power to ReactOS
by jello on Thu 17th May 2007 17:00 UTC
jello
Member since:
2006-08-08

Hopefully in 3 to 5 years ReactOS will be usable as a desktop replacement, and all WinXP-32 and WinXP-64 drivers just work on ReactOS-32 and ReactOS-64...

Edited 2007-05-17 17:01

Reply Score: 2

Depressing...
by Innominandum on Thu 17th May 2007 17:22 UTC
Innominandum
Member since:
2005-11-18

I think it's depressing because they're working with the x86-64 architecture. Essentially the same crap we've been using since the 80's, with a bit more torque.

Where have you gone Alpha????? ;)

Reply Score: 2

it doesnt matter
by poundsmack on Thu 17th May 2007 17:29 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

the fact of the matter is it took what 5 years from xp to vista? in 5 (heck even 2) more years there wont be any 32 bit cpu's even avalible for the consumer desktop market likely. 64 bit is just the simple evolution of things. personally i welcome it. it means more 64 bit optimized code. bring it on ;)

Reply Score: 1

Kernel moves ... user can stay 32-bit
by kscguru on Thu 17th May 2007 18:02 UTC
kscguru
Member since:
2006-01-21

As I understand it, this just means the post-Vista kernel will be unconditionally 64-bit. It's quite easy to run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit kernel - Windows uses WoW64, Linux just needs 32-bit libs (usually ia32-libs or something). MacOS is natively 64-bit on newer processors, but all user apps run 32-bit.

In this case, 32-bit compatibility is easy. The only things that HAVE to upgrade are drivers, and those already have to be 64-bit for Vista. Honestly, this isn't a big deal.

Reply Score: 1

Low quality
by Supreme Dragon on Thu 17th May 2007 18:04 UTC
Supreme Dragon
Member since:
2007-03-04

64 bit Windows = 64 bit DRM and malware

The wow starts now!

Reply Score: 1

an odd word
by gsmd on Thu 17th May 2007 18:30 UTC
gsmd
Member since:
2007-02-02

Should the title read "Vista To Be Last Version of Windows"?

Reply Score: 1

Has MS missed a long-term opportunity?
by curts on Thu 17th May 2007 18:35 UTC
curts
Member since:
2007-04-18

Frankly, I think MS is being short-sighted and should have made Vista strictly 64-bit. That would have given Vista a lot more cache' and more incentive for the average Windows user to embrace the new version. As it stands now, unless you are a serious PC Gamer wanting to play the new DX10 titles (or perhaps a serious home video editor?), one might as well sit tight on XP for now and wait for the 64-bit only Windows product (assuming you even need to stick with Windows - see below).

The dawn of ubiquitous 64-bit computing has been on the horizon for several years now. Vista could have finally made that day arrive. By not forcing Windows developers (both apps. and drivers) to support a 64-bit only Vista, MS is not showing technical leadership. Rather, they appear to be milking a cash cow for short-term profit.

I have an Ubuntu AMD 64 desktop today that successfully does much of what I want my desktop PC to do, but it was hard work getting it there. Too hard for the average PC user. If the Linux community can flesh out a rock solid 64-bit desktop that comes with all the usual drivers, media apps,and browser plugins pre-installed (or very, very easily installed, i.e. manually installing Automatix2 doesn't cut it for the average end-user), Linux could steal much of Microsoft's 64-bit desktop thunder.

Reply Score: 1

they did it before
by smashIt on Thu 17th May 2007 18:54 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

ms already did this before
they dropped support for pre pentium-cpus with win98. that was 5 years after intel released the pentium.
if they drop 32bit in lets say 2 years, that'd be 6 years after the athlon 64 was released.

i don't think that anybody will care about such a non-issue in 2009

Reply Score: 1

64 Bit OS Not the Issue
by segedunum on Thu 17th May 2007 20:05 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Having a 64 bit only OS is not the problem. The problem is whether it supports all the 32 bit software there is out there - and there is a lot. Certainly in businesses, there will be applications and components that won't be recompiled and will be around for a very, very long time. If they are left by the wayside then Windows is not the OS you want to be putting your critical stuff on.

Reply Score: 2

piracy strategy?
by attila4000 on Thu 17th May 2007 21:20 UTC
attila4000
Member since:
2007-05-17

could this be a possible piracy strategy by ms? if windows needs more memory and a faster cpu then consumers will have to spend more money for a more expensive pc. even if you steal a copy of windows you wont be able to run it on a 32-bit or older pc with not enough memory or cpu speed. there are millions of bogus copies of windows around the world and this may be an effective way for ms to slowly kill off those bastards.

Reply Score: 1

16 bits
by madcap on Thu 17th May 2007 21:45 UTC
madcap
Member since:
2005-12-31

I think this is a natural evolution of the PC platform. By the time the new Windows comes out, 32-bits will be "old school" anyways.

Besides, there wasn't any outcry when 16 bits was left behind for 32 bits.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 16 bits
by Almafeta on Thu 17th May 2007 22:17 UTC in reply to "16 bits"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Oh, there was.

I still remember back when the Amiga came out; the Commodore 64 users were complaining that it didn't do anything that the C64 and GEOS wasn't doing, that it was harder to program for, that the 16-bit hardware (the 68000, at that time, was a 16-bit processor with a few 32-bit elements) was unneeded, that boot times were soooo much better a few years ago, that it wasn't backwards-compatible with the C64's hardware (and why can't you emulate an Amiga on a C64?), and so on and so forth. (I've thought about taking notes on some back issues of RUN and Compute! to show that things weren't much better in the 'good old days', either...)

The more things change, the more computer users complain; and the more things stay the same, the more computer users complain.

Reply Score: 2

Feature Upgrades
by codehead78 on Thu 17th May 2007 21:59 UTC
codehead78
Member since:
2006-08-04

Wasn't there a story a while ago about switching from releasing the full OS and releasing "feature packs"? That is was Vista is, 1 disk and you pay extra to unlock feature sets that are already on the disk.

So if Microsoft embraces this model, they could extend support for Vista beyond the next major OS release.

Reply Score: 1

Dump Windows and switch to SPARC
by rom508 on Thu 17th May 2007 22:41 UTC
rom508
Member since:
2007-04-20

# uname -a
SunOS ultra10 5.10 Generic_118833-36 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10

# psrinfo -pv
The physical processor has 1 virtual processor (0)
UltraSPARC-IIi (portid 0 impl 0x12 ver 0x91 clock 440 MHz)

I use the above as my desktop system, which was first released in 1999. Even at 8 years old and 440MHz it is rock solid and quite usable running either NetBSD or Solaris. With properly designed software and the right optimisation techniques there is no need for faster hardware.

Reply Score: 2

Before we all jump to conclusions
by paulc on Thu 17th May 2007 23:47 UTC
paulc
Member since:
2007-05-17

Make sure you read the ammendment to the article, or just read this:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/18/o...

Journalist got it wrong - Windows Longhorn will be the last 32-bit server OS. On the client/desktop side though they have no abandoned 32-bit.

Reply Score: 5

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Make sure you read the ammendment to the article, or just read this:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/18/o.....

Journalist got it wrong - Windows Longhorn will be the last 32-bit server OS. On the client/desktop side though they have no abandoned 32-bit."


apcmag got the story wrong? What a shock!! /sarcasm

Reply Score: 3

Sigh...this is for your own good, fools!
by 1c3d0g on Fri 18th May 2007 02:30 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

About damn time, if you ask me. Finally we can get rid of the biggest roadblock to future software development. 64-bit is the future, whether you agree with everyone else or not is irrelevant.

For once, I agree with Microsoft. Just do it!

Reply Score: 2