Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th May 2007 15:45 UTC, submitted by anevilyak
Windows "Bill Laing, a General Manager in the Microsoft Windows Server Division, has been quoted as saying that Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit operating system. Bill is a server guy and indeed Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit server operating system - all future operating systems for server hardware from Microsoft beyond Windows Server 2008 will be 64-bit. A few folks took Bill's comments on Windows Server and applied them to Windows Client deriving that Windows Vista would be the last 32-bit operating system. That is an incorrect extension. While Windows Vista includes both 32-bit and 64-bit and there is a growing community of drivers for 64-bit Windows Vista we have not decided when Windows Client will follow Windows Server and become 64-bit only."
Thread beginning with comment 241491
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why not go 64bit
by Seth Quarrier on Fri 18th May 2007 15:54 UTC
Seth Quarrier
Member since:
2005-11-13

I have a hard time believing that in five years when the next Windows client comes out there will be any 32 bit hardware with the specs to run it. Can you imagine trying to run Vista on hardware that was released when XP was, it would be a joke, and running whatever replaces Vista on today's hardware is just as much a joke and it seems that the future of x86 is AMD64 regardless of whether or not we need it. This also makes sense for their server OS.

RE: Why not go 64bit
by predictor on Fri 18th May 2007 16:12 in reply to "Why not go 64bit"
predictor Member since:
2006-11-30

"I have a hard time believing that in five years when the next Windows client comes out there will be any 32 bit hardware with the specs to run it."

You hit the nail on the head, dude. This is the *real* reason. Of course, maintaining only the 64-bit source base is easier too.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE: Why not go 64bit
by BluenoseJake on Fri 18th May 2007 16:20 in reply to "Why not go 64bit"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

There's no reason Vista can't run on a 1.6Ghz. You might have to upgrade the ram and the VC, but a system bought in 2001 should run vista, if you up grade 2 components. and Ram is cheap. an AGP video card is cheap. it may not be the fastest thing on the block, but it WILL run Vista

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[2]: Why not go 64bit
by alexandru_lz on Fri 18th May 2007 16:30 in reply to "RE: Why not go 64bit"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

There's no reason Vista can't run on a 1.6Ghz. You might have to upgrade the ram and the VC, but a system bought in 2001 should run vista, if you up grade 2 components. and Ram is cheap. an AGP video card is cheap. it may not be the fastest thing on the block, but it WILL run Vista

Well, maybe, but as far as I can see it, there's no reason to have an AGP video card on a server -- you won't play games or watch movies on it. For that matter, I'm willing to argue on whether a server actually needs *any* video card at all -- but I can understand that some people prefer to have a GUI.

I sincerely hope Windows Server will use resources for more useful purposes than Vista does.

Come to think of it, that Canadian firm will pump enough qubits to run Vista by the time Windows Server appears :-P

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1