Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 10th Aug 2003 12:20 UTC, submitted by jessejlt
Windows Here is some information about Windows XP 64bit. It has some features not found on any 32bit Windows version, but it is missing some other features not ported/tested yet.
Order by: Score:
Lots of baggage that's unwanted for some applications
by Ed on Sun 10th Aug 2003 12:37 UTC

Without all that entertainment/spyware/database infrastructure, maybe XP-64 will be a nicely responsive OS for running simulations (and gaming) applications that need realtime core OS services that want high system bandwidth and as little latency as possible. Many serious graphical applications have no need for any of those missing services. They should be optional in ALL versions of Windows.

Dear God!
by Kingston on Sun 10th Aug 2003 12:43 UTC

What *does* it support?!

itanium version of windows?
by :-) on Sun 10th Aug 2003 12:48 UTC

isn't this windows64 for the itanium64 and not for opteron, which supposedly can run 32bit apps natively? so doesn't that mean that dvd decoding and cd recording and other stuff listed on that second website would work just fine?

at least thats what i thought... correct me if am wrong...

I would prefer linux...
by Marcelo on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:15 UTC

No DVD playing ? No CD burning ? There are a lot of features not supported for an expensive operating system.

I would be better to use linux instead.

no dvd/cdr -> then linux-64 it will be
by tech_user on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:33 UTC

i think more people will at least think about linux 9and the bsd's) on 64-but cpus if windows won't play dvd, or multimedia videos, burn cds... etc...

Kind of misleading...
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:35 UTC

I think that this is old information pertaining to the Itanium version of Windows, i.e. the one with IA64 support, where expecting them to have bundled DVD movie playing support with the operating system would be a little silly. Let's see some information about the 64-bit operating system intended for AMD's 64-bit processors. This is the one that is meant for the typical home user.

No mention of drivers.
by cheezwog on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:45 UTC

Won't every single third party binary device driver will no longer work? While Microsoft has their own (limited) in-house device drivers for some hardware, they cannot re-compile propriatory drivers for 64bit, which will mean most hardware will not be supported.

Linux has the edge here, as the drivers are mostly open source, I can recompile the existing drivers for 64bit, and not have to wait for the hardware company to come up with 64bit drivers, or be forced to obsolete the hardware.

It's starting to make sense why the kernel developers are so hot on keeping drivers open source.

Windows Features
by jaavaaguru on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:46 UTC

Finally, they're cutting out some of the bloat that nobody running a completely up-to-date system should need (MS-DOS, OS/2 and 16-bit subsystems).

Re @tech_user...
"linux 9"? You'll be waiting a few years for that then. I've currently got Linux 2.4 running on this machine...

[sandyd@vaio sorn.net]$ uname -r
2.4.20-8

so its AMD over Intel for the mass home martet?
by tech_user on Sun 10th Aug 2003 13:48 UTC

so is microsft impolying that they want the AMD-64 versionf of windows for home users... and if sio ... is this the end of intel's donminance for the home desktop?

so is microsft impolying that they want the AMD-64 versionf of windows for home users... and if sio ... is this the end of intel's donminance for the home desktop?

Try buying an Itanium-based desktop. There aren't any. Microsoft does not create software for nonexistant markets...

That said, even if Intel actually has a 64-bit processor, we don't know that and we don't know whether Microsoft already has a 64-bit operating system planned for it. For all we know, Intel may be using x86-64 (AMD's 64-bit instruction set) for it instead of IA64 (Itanium's 64-bit instruction set). I wouldn't make decisions based on things we don't know, so I would not say that Microsoft has snubbed Intel.

Correction:

That said, even if Intel actually has a 64-bit processor

Should be:

[i]That said, even if Intel actually has a 64-bit processor for the home market[/i/]

RE: No mention of drivers.
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 14:09 UTC

Won't every single third party binary device driver will no longer work?

Yes, until the third parties recompile those drivers.

BTW, further proof the MSDN docs are talking about a 64-bit version of Windows XP for the Itanium CPU:

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition requires the installation of 64-bit drivers only. Some device drivers are modified to allow installation of 64-bit and 32-bit drivers from the same .inf file. These modifications also prevent installation of the wrong driver on the wrong platform. The extension .ia64 is used in the .inf file of these drivers to identify the installation files and sections in the .inf file that can be installed on the 64-bit platform. Previous versions of Windows do not recognize the .ia64 extension, and ignore any .inf file entries that contain it.

RE: No mention of drivers.
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 14:20 UTC

Also found on the OS requirements page is 1 GB of RAM and a 733 MHz processor. I doubt very much that a consumer OS would require that much RAM after a simple translation from x86 to x86-64, and there is no x86-64 CPU to be released under 1 GHz, so the requirements don't make any sense for an Athlon 64 home user system.

What is the downside to...
by CooCooCaChoo on Sun 10th Aug 2003 15:03 UTC

Subsystems and Protocols Windows XP 64-Bit Edition does not provide support for a number of older subsystems and transport protocols, including the following:

- Microsoft® MS-DOS® subsystem
- OS/2 subsystems
- 16-bit subsystems
- Portable Operating System Interface for UNIX (POSIX) subsystem


As I see it right now, these pieces should be removed form the 32bit edition as well. Why does one need a MSDOS subsystem? OS/2 subsystem? 16bit?

About the *only* possible one that *could* be useful would be POSIX. As for the rest, I'll repeat, Microsoft should make this the standard for ALL their operating systems.

Features?
by abraxas on Sun 10th Aug 2003 15:04 UTC

The "features" found in 64-bit Windows is due more to having a 64-bit processor than Windows itself. Meanwhile the negatives are many. Windows bills itself as a multmedia operating system but if it cannot play DVDs or burn CDs then what good is it? With that said, Microsoft owns the market and they will be sure to have the needed drivers and such by the time they release a 64-bit home operating system. It seems that this itineration is for servers and not the home.

Compatibility
by abraxas on Sun 10th Aug 2003 15:13 UTC

//As I see it right now, these pieces should be removed form the 32bit edition as well. Why does one need a MSDOS subsystem? OS/2 subsystem? 16bit? //

Everything you mention is for compatibility. Microsoft has always tried to remain compatible (with applications not file formats) because it assured them a larger market share. If an OS can run programs from Operating System X,Y, and Z then it gives them a very large advantage over competing systems. Then when another OS comes along, not only do they have to operate better, respond faster, and look prettier, but now they have to worry about compatibility to match Windows. I think this has been the smartest marketing move by Microsoft but one of the worst technological moves. They will move forward much easier without all that bloat but unfortunately the 32-bit version is still a fat pig.

Methinks that the lack of support for CD burning and DVD playback is probably simply because MS is not quite finished with porting WinXP to Itanium. MS is probably porting the more crucial stuff first, with the niceties later to follow.

Much as I am not fond of Microsoft, I don't think that the list of missing features is a good example of Microsoft badness. (IMHO, with the exception of the Registry, the badness of Windows doesn't come from technical problems, but rather from it coming from a dishonest vendor that customers can't even quite trust.)

RE: Compability
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 15:31 UTC

Excellent posts, abraxas! I also want to add that the compatibility features are not directly compromising system stability on Windows XP. DOS programs are run in a protected VM, and Windows 3.x cooperative multitasking programs are all run through a single preemptive multitasking process to simulate the unsafe behavior that Win3.x allowed but without endangering your other applications and the system itself. More information on how Microsoft has implemented compatibility for older operating systems can be found on the MSDN site if you are interested.

DVD playing/CD burning
by jaavaaguru on Sun 10th Aug 2003 15:36 UTC

DVD playing and CD burning isn't that necessary for a corporate desktop workstation. Maybe MS plans on aiming this at that market. These utilities are needed there just about as much as an average home user needs 64-bit at the moment.

Longhorn is #1
by Danox on Sun 10th Aug 2003 16:15 UTC

Longhorn in 2005 is the #1 priority at MS. Whatever attention 64 bit XP is getting it isn't #1.

RE: Compability
by Alain on Sun 10th Aug 2003 17:05 UTC

Microsoft purchased Connectix Virtual PC, the compatibility with OS/2, DOS, Win16n may very well be done through emulation. May be compatibility with Linux too?

The underlying OS will be less bloated.

Is it a finished product yet?

What the hell does it support?
by Mystilleef on Sun 10th Aug 2003 18:42 UTC

Pffft...yet another reason to stick to Linux.

Regards,

Mystilleef

RE: What the hell does it support?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Aug 2003 19:28 UTC

While we appreciate your stunning and objective insight, as others have pointed out, this is intended for the corporate market, and the features are being done in the correct order.

Speaking of which, does Linux even have a legal DVD player? You know one with a licensed DVD decoder?

64-bit OS with crippled 16GB physical memory limit = Microsoft
by Dr. Samsung on Sun 10th Aug 2003 19:40 UTC

Microsoft goes to all the trouble of building a 64-bit OS... only to cripple it with a 16GB physical memory limit.

Considering that HP has shipping Itanium workstations for over a year that go up to 24GB... Microsoft seems like they've put another one of their artificial limits in place.

As my company wants to sell more memory, we need to convince Microsoft that RAM is GOOD. People love RAM. Give the people RAM!

Dr. Sam.

:)))
by BlackTiger on Sun 10th Aug 2003 19:52 UTC

:)))
Very funny! ;) ))
What it supports? Very "powerfull" OS!
Doesn't supports "Windows Installer"! Why i need such OS? I don't have petabytes of RAM and HDD.

Don't they already have a 64-bit windows?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Aug 2003 20:46 UTC

Whatever happened to Windows NT for the Alphas? isn't that technically 64bit anyhow? Who gives a crap about Windows XP for 64-bit anyhow? Anyone who is going to run that kind of hardware won't be running it at home, and no corporation is going to buy that kind of hardware for their desktop PC's either. On the other hand if/when the x86-64's become more affordable I can see them on the desktop of high-end gamers. Honestly, most corporations still have Pentium 3's and are not likely to upgrade to anything higher for a long time, unless some specific application they NEED requires them to. Most home users are also only using P3's because all they do is get email, word process, finances, web-browsing etc. And you can do that just fine on a Pentium 2 with win9x. The people who usually buy the high-end platforms are generally gamers or scientists who need that extra CPU power.

legal DVD
by zeb on Sun 10th Aug 2003 21:12 UTC

Speaking of which, does Linux even have a legal DVD player? You know one with a licensed DVD decoder?

In Europe, using libdvdcss is authorized for interoperability. It may be a problem when we get the EUCD though. And Lindows has been able to get a licence for DVD decryption.

re: I would prefer linux
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Aug 2003 21:13 UTC

No DVD playing ?

No version of Windows ships with a media player that can decode DVDs. To get DVD playback you have to purchase a codec for WMP or a 3rd party application. Microsoft isn't a DVD technology licensor.

RE: itanium version of windows?
by netadict on Sun 10th Aug 2003 21:16 UTC

yep this is the itanium version of windows. if you take a look @ "Overview of Windows XP 64-Bit Edition" you'll see it in the first paragraph.
But I don’t think that there will be such problems with the x86-64 version of windows XP. It's more likely for them to take the approach Apple takes with the G5. Just recompile/rewrite (?)/fix the important stuff like the memory subsystem/file system (?) and not recreate the whole OS -backwards compatibility you see-

by the way I’m not a programmer I’m just saying what I’m thinking so don't shoot if I’m saying bullshit...

i looked at the list of missing stuff
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Aug 2003 21:46 UTC

i don't need any of that crap any way. ;-)

RE: I looked at the list of missing stuff
by chris on Sun 10th Aug 2003 22:07 UTC

Are you sure you don't need the windows installer?

Read the whole list please.

It's kind of funny...
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 23:24 UTC

...that a lot of people are debating about a version of Windows XP that has been released for months and that they'll probably never see running.

Itaniums are very expensive CPUs, and they are not aimed at the home user market. They are aimed at a market which has no use for built-in media players and DVD playback. Heck, it doesn't even need product activation - that's how rare this is. No one's going to want to pirate an operating system on a large scale for such a limited market.

The list does not say anywhere that this is an in-progress report on the currently missing features for the Windows operating system that will run on AMD's processor; in fact, this list is for an already available version of Windows XP for Itanium: a whole different architecture. Windows XP 64-bit Edition was released to manufacturing in May 2003.

So what's up with all the speculation?

https://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/

Price
by Mystilleef on Sun 10th Aug 2003 23:30 UTC

Nobody mentioned how much it will be selling for.

/me grins

Regards,

Mystilleef

RE: Price
by null_pointer_us on Sun 10th Aug 2003 23:41 UTC

It appears that you can't buy it separately, and there's not much reason to, either. It's only useful on Itanium-based workstations, and how many people here are even interested in getting one of those?

http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/

DVD decoder
by Bayerwerke on Mon 11th Aug 2003 00:56 UTC

"Speaking of which, does Linux even have a legal DVD player? You know one with a licensed DVD decoder?"

Why should a license be required to watch DVDs you own or rent? Should there be a reading license required before you buy a book or go to the library?

RE: RE: No mention of drivers.
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 01:13 UTC

LoL - I 1 gig worth of ram just to run notepad and ms paint.

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.suaa.snfc.snfccafj.dsl.att.net)
by Chewy509 on Mon 11th Aug 2003 03:12 UTC

WinNT4.0 for Alpha IIRC was only 32bit, even though the arch was 64bit, MS only used it as a 32bit platform... ;)

Linux DVD
by ethzero on Mon 11th Aug 2003 03:15 UTC

Speaking of which, does Linux even have a legal DVD player? You know one with a licensed DVD decoder?

Lindows has a licensed DVD player based on Xine.

they just rewrote windows 98
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 05:04 UTC

Another windows 98 -> Mellinium and now this another sloppy OS from MS.

they just rewrote windows 98 By Anonymous
by guest on Mon 11th Aug 2003 06:40 UTC

ok, that is a very stupid comment.

RE: DVD
by Mystilleef on Mon 11th Aug 2003 06:45 UTC

So now I need a license to watch my DVDs? Very soon I'll be needing a license to take dump.

Regards,

Mystilleef

Lack of features
by Kingston on Mon 11th Aug 2003 07:21 UTC

Although I do have to agree that most of those missing features are not required in the least for say a scientific workstation, some of those missing features I do find mind boggling.

Windows Installer, and Power Management for instance. ACPI is quickly becomming a standard for both power management as well as device configuration and it's absence from WinXP 64 leave me scratching my head wondering. Not to mention the 16 TB of usable memory. 64 bit Linux and BSD could make use of the full ~18 exabytes were it available.

RE: RE: DVD
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 07:59 UTC

Yes, do you own the rights to the DVD technology? No? I assume you think it should be "Free"'d from its proprietary shackles. But it was not developed by you, and you don't get to control how it is used. The licensing of DVD technology specifically requires royalties per decoder, which is why there are few legal free DVD decoders (if any). Since you have prior art on taking a shit, you're free to sell it to anyone you like (most people give it away for free though under the guise of Linux).










































































































































































































RE: DVD
by Mystilleef on Mon 11th Aug 2003 09:12 UTC

Yes, do you own the rights to the DVD technology? No?

I could care less about DVD technology. I bought a DVD, and as far as I'm concerned, I have every right to watch it anyhow, anywhere and at any place in time. DVD technology can kiss my butt.

I assume you think it should be "Free"'d from its proprietary shackles.

I assume your assumptions are flawed, as the basis for your baseless assumptions are unfounded.

But it was not developed by you, and you don't get to control how it is used.

That's like telling me I can't listen to my CDs on my computer or a friends CD player because we did not develop CD technology nor do we own the license to CD technology. It only make sense to me when I'm drunk.

The licensing of DVD technology specifically requires royalties per decoder, which is why there are few legal free DVD decoders (if any).

What bullshit!!! So when I pay for a copy of a DVD, what I'm paying for? Plastic flakes?

Since you have prior art on taking a shit, you're free to sell it to anyone you like (most people give it away for free though under the guise of Linux).

You are welcomed to contribute to my project of taking a shit. It is GPLed. Feel free to modify, copy, distribute, alter and relicense its source to heart content. You are also free to demand a license fee or "royalties" per toilet, SCO style, thereby making only very few legally free toilets (if any).

Really, I could care less.

Regards,

Mystilleef

Re: Mystileef
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 09:42 UTC

Yes, do you own the rights to the DVD technology? No?

I could care less about DVD technology. I bought a DVD, and as far as I'm concerned, I have every right to watch it anyhow, anywhere and at any place in time. DVD technology can kiss my butt.


Ah yes, the classic, "kiss my butt damn legalities" argument.

But it was not developed by you, and you don't get to control how it is used.

That's like telling me I can't listen to my CDs on my computer or a friends CD player because we did not develop CD technology nor do we own the license to CD technology. It only make sense to me when I'm drunk.


Wrong. CDs are not encrypted, and they do not require licensed decoders. I'm sure you also have no problems making copies of your CDs and giving them to your friends. After all, you bought it, you can do whatever you want with it, right?


You are welcomed to contribute to my project of taking a shit. It is GPLed.


No one is questioning your claims that the GPL is shit (and vice-versa).

I must apologize, my GNU/GPL/Linux browser seems to be having some issues and is inserting some extra line carriages at the end of my posts.

























































































































































Re : crippled 16GB - RE: DVD
by Sebastien O. on Mon 11th Aug 2003 09:44 UTC

"Microsoft goes to all the trouble of building a 64-bit OS... only to cripple it with a 16GB physical memory limit. "

It isn't crippled to 16 giga of memory but to 16 terabyte of memory. Not the same thing. Learn to read.

"What bullshit!!! So when I pay for a copy of a DVD, what I'm paying for? Plastic flakes?"

You're paying for the movie on it... you're not paying right for the format nor the decoder. You pay to have the right to have this copy at home and watch it on legal decoder.
If you want to watch, you must have a legal decoder who can read this format. It's all. Same for the video and so on...

No one is forced to open his format to other. No one compel you to buy a dvd instead of a video. If you do not have a legal decoder, you can buy the alternative ;)

Re: Mystilleef
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 09:46 UTC

http://www.dvdforum.org/format-format.htm

Here is the link where you can apply for a legal DVD decoding license, if you should ever feel like you would like to be in good standing with the law (instead of a dirty gnu-hippie).

Tata for now.






































































































libdvdcss
by Uman on Mon 11th Aug 2003 12:18 UTC

If law is so stupid it should be changed.
I pay 30 euro for DVD and cannot play it ?
I donot have any windows .
> dirty gnu-hippie
an u are so clean ???

Sweetening Apples..........
by Hard Cider on Mon 11th Aug 2003 12:58 UTC

Apple's G5, and OSX are starting to look sweeter by the day.

I'm glad I'll have one to test out at work first. ;)

clue
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Aug 2003 13:58 UTC

duh, when you buy your stand alone dvd player , the price already covers the license.

RE: Lack of features
by null_pointer_us on Mon 11th Aug 2003 14:06 UTC

My guess is that porting those features would have taken more time than Microsoft is willing to put into that particular OS port. Since it seems to be selling from only one vendor (HP) and running on a fairly uncommon piece of hardware (Itanium-based workstation), I doubt they're going to put too much effort behind the project.

I hope people won't take the feature list of this operating system as any indication about the upcoming consumer Athlon 64 version of Windows XP, which should run games, play DVDs, and all the other things people normally expect a home user OS to do.

RE:
by SIE on Mon 11th Aug 2003 14:29 UTC

All it says in that these features are not included, it doesn't say anything about not being able to use 3rd party software, afterall not many people use the built in CD burning feature of windows XP and as for the DVD playback Windows Media Player has built in support for DVD playback using a 3rd party DVD decoder so if Windows Media Player isn't included then obviuosly it doesn't have built in support for DVD playback. Overall the lack of these features is only going to effect a very small number of people.

RE: DVD
by interfacer on Mon 11th Aug 2003 16:13 UTC

"I could care less about DVD technology. I bought a DVD, and as far as I'm concerned, I have every right to watch it anyhow, anywhere and at any place in time. DVD technology can kiss my butt. "

so following your reasoning it is perfectly reasonable to say "I bought this CD with linux sources, so i can use it to build my proprietary software"

after all, 'license schmicense', right?

(why do i have this feeling that you'll say this is completely different)

basically you are just a hypocrite.
licensing is licensing.

regards,
Int.

RE: DVD
by Mystilleef on Mon 11th Aug 2003 20:15 UTC

You Miscrofoft butt lickers completely digust me. First you assume I have an illegal copy of DVD decoders. Then you go on to assume I'm proponent for GNU licences. Then you go on to talk all sorts of crap about licences you have no idea about. Then you go on to assume it illegal to encrypt and decyrtp DVD technology in the country I live in.

Let me ask the following questions.

What DVD encoder/decoder do I use?

How do you know your Windows Media Player has the appropriate licence to play DVDs?

How do I know the DVD player I or you, hardware or software, is licensed.

Is it my duty as a consumer to license my DVD decoders?

So once again let me recap your logic.

1). I purchase a legal copy of a DvD, movies or otherwise.

2). I purchase a legal copy of a DVD player.

3). I purchase a legal copy of a DVD rom and related softwares for my computer.

4). Then now I have to purchase a legal license to view my DVDs?

Do you guys by any chance work for SCO? Because the FUDs you are spewing is absolutely dehumanizing. That's what happens when you read Microsoft EULA agreement every night before going to bed.

Regards,

Mystilleef

RE: DVD
by Mystilleef on Mon 11th Aug 2003 20:21 UTC

So, Mr Anonymous, let's summarize your argument. I'm an illegal citizen because I use linux and I can watch DVDs on it, most especially on its 64-bit version. You make a lot of sense you know.

Regards,

Mystilleef

RE: DVD
by Mystilleef on Mon 11th Aug 2003 20:21 UTC

So, Mr Anonymous, let's summarize your argument. I'm an illegal citizen because I use linux and I can watch DVDs on it, most especially on its 64-bit version. You make a lot of sense you know.

Regards,

Mystilleef

DVD legalities
by Merlin on Wed 13th Aug 2003 17:16 UTC

Since your IP address shows "IP: ---.pnk.adelphia.net", I think we can safely surmise that you're in the United States, or possibly Canada, though I don't think Adelphia does anything up there. Further, checking similar hostmasks elsewhere, it would appear that you're in the northeastern part of the US. In that case, without a legitimate decoding license, yes, it probably is illegal for you to decode the movie. Further, any stand-alone hardware that is bought does contain the decoder license, which is why you can buy a DVD player and watch DVDs on it without paying anything extra.

When you buy a DVD, you're paying for a license to watch it pursuant to restrictions placed on it by the copyright holder, which include restrictions on public viewing and restrictions on copying.