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 241073
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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[3]: Dumb
by CPUGuy on Thu 17th May 2007 15:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Dumb"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Dumb
by flywheel on Fri 18th May 2007 07:47 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 Parent Score: 1

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 Henrik on Fri 18th May 2007 01:18 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Dumb
by keith.unix on Sat 19th May 2007 02:23 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 Parent Score: 1

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[3]: Dumb
by helf on Thu 17th May 2007 17:33 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Dumb
by Kroc on Thu 17th May 2007 18:37 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Dumb
by siimo on Thu 17th May 2007 19:35 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 Parent Score: 5