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."
Thread beginning with comment 241067
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Dumb
by diegocg on Thu 17th May 2007 15:42 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by Excel Hearts Choi on Thu 17th May 2007 15:43 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by macro on Thu 17th May 2007 15:50 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Dumb
by jokinin on Thu 17th May 2007 16:51 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Dumb
by helf on Thu 17th May 2007 17:31 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by shadow303 on Thu 17th May 2007 15:38 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 Parent Score: 4

RE: Dumb
by re_re on Thu 17th May 2007 15:39 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by Laurence on Thu 17th May 2007 15:41 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: Dumb
by Almafeta on Thu 17th May 2007 15:50 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 Parent Score: 2

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

So, was it sempron or celeron?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Dumb
by flywheel on Fri 18th May 2007 07:51 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Dumb
by anevilyak on Thu 17th May 2007 15:58 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Dumb
by kaiwai on Fri 18th May 2007 02:34 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Dumb
by viton on Fri 18th May 2007 11:23 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 Parent Score: 1