To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"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.
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
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






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.