OSNews

Possibly, many of the lowpower chips such as the VIA C7 are 32Bit only and may still be that way in 3-5 years

What stops You from running 32 bit OS on 64 bit chip? I'm doing it.

A 32-bit OS has a constraint of being able to address only 4GB of memory.

In 3-5 years, entry-level machines will have more memory than that.

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201...
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201...

"Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?"

For sale in general? As a new product? Surely not. But will there be 32-bit chips still around that are capable to run this new "Windows"? :-)

Theoretically yes; practically, no.
It's like saying you can run Vista on 800 MHz. You can do it; in the same way you can run XP on 8 Mhz http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

By the time '7' is out, 32-bit machines may be considered unbearably slow, who knows.

But will there be 32-bit chips still around that are capable to run this new "Windows"? :-)

There aren't a ton of those chips that can comfortably run Vista, to say nothing of Windows 7. They might exist, but will likely be completely unsuitable if the jump in requirements between Vista and 7 is anything like the jump from XP to Vista.

In the embedded space things could be different, but there's hardly a reason for a desktop OS scheduled for release 3 years from now to be 32 bit. Why would they delay this increasingly necessary transition even more?

I don't understand why they're planning to continue shipping separate 32 and 64 bit versions? Apple has already proved that universal binaries that run on both platforms are quite possible, and it won't be long till we have the full operating system on 32 and 64 bit in a single package.

Splitting it up like this just seems like an unnecessary hassle for Microsoft's customers. Why should they worry about which edition to purchase? It should just work.

"I don't understand why they're planning to continue shipping separate 32 and 64 bit versions?"

I'm pretty sure a decision like this was actively made by Microsoft, and more than likely it's cost effective for them to ship separate media according to 'bitness'.

Also, don't forget that all SKU's of Vista come on either a Retail/OEM 32-bit, or Retail/OEM 64-bit DVD; the edition which is installed from the DVD is determined by the license key entered, so it's not like there are 12 different DVD combinations they have to press. From a manufacturing standpoint, I'd say it seems pretty efficient.

Apple is running a 32-bit OS, so they have different constraints. It's a bit strange, but Apple has been supporting a set of 64-bit userspace programs on a 32-bit kernel, so it's not even necessary for them to have two packages for the OS. It's not so easy with 64-bit Windows, which is a clean implementation.

I hope they finally replace the kernel with something good in OS 11.

As for maintaining two versions on the Windows side, I agree with you that having only one will simplify hardware choices. But the embedded market will suffer a bit if they discontinue 32-bit Windows. I believe Microsoft announced that 2008 is the last 32-bit version of Windows Server.

Unless 64 bit chips can run on a lower power diet than 32 bit ones can (that seems unlikely) embedded products that use Windows aren't likely to go to 64 bit chips for that reason, even if the prices of 64 bit chips aren't higher (another reason why not) and it's logical that Microsoft will transition their embedded versions over to the most recent client codebase for the base code.

In addition, as odd as it may seem to the tech geek that insists on replacing their systems every couple of years, there will still be quite a few people in the world that are using 32 bit desktop machines from this time period, because they still work perfectly fine for their usage, and they don't want/need anything higher-end to work with, and in a lot of places, it comes down to budget: not everyone has nearly as much disposable income for electronics as many of the higher-income industrialized countries. Granted, from reading on anandtech about some of the latest video games having issues with the 2 GB userspace limit, the people still running 32 bit processors at that time aren't likely to be the hard-core gamers that run these applications, but then again, those gamers aren't likely to be using systems that old, either, if they can avoid it.

Also, in the business arena, again, there will be many machines out there that are 32 bit processors, because they don't feel a great need/desire to upgrade to the latest machines, because most business users (people using word processors, spreadsheets, other more typical clerical stuff) frankly don't need even as much as current typical 32 bit machines offer, and why spend money on a new machine if the old ones are working well?

The real question as to how quickly the Windows world will transition over to new stuff that's only 64-bit rests largely in the hands of the developers, combined with customers currently using 32-bit versions of Windows and transitioning over: if there's not much market for 64-bit only software, developers are often not very willing to make that jump, and the overhead for developing and supporting both 32 and 64-bit software isn't zero. For an example, look at how long it took to get many applications to target only 32-bit Windows: Windows 95 was 2 years after Windows NT 3.1, which had very few 32-bit applications available for the longest time, and even for quite a bit of time after Windows 95, people were still developing games that didn't use it for various reasons, using EMM, etc. so yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a meaningful market for 32-bit Windows 3 years from now.

64b CPU won't of course use less power than 32b one, but I doubt that they will use much more power though.

>there will still be quite a few people in the world that are using 32 bit desktop machines from this time period,

Sure, but those people won't upgrade their OS too,
so for a new OS what matter the most is the new PCs..

Microsoft probably learned some lessons from the Vista development cycle. Maybe they'll apply them this time around. The biggest mistake they made was promising these bold new pillars, at least one of which was dropped. The remaining pillars were not nearly as exciting as Microsoft thought they would be, and it's not clear that third-party developers are chomping at the bit to use these new proprietary APIs.

But they did effectively sell really scary doomsday scenarios that made the released version of Vista seem comparatively cute and cuddly. Remember Hailstorm, the plan to turn Windows into a subscription-based remote application platform? Microsoft should announce a bold plan to make Windows 7 completely unpalatable to just about anyone.

For example, announce Microsoft Media Protector, a mandatory system service that Protects all media on your computer with special DRM required for playback on Windows 7. Then back away from this plan about a year before the release, citing licensing issues with copyright holders that don't want to Protect their users. Suddenly, Windows 7 won't seem so awful. It'll seem downright acceptable.

It has also been a giant lemon as well - if they had 'server' and 'desktop' edition; and if 'desktop edition' was what 'Ultimate' is, then it would be a pretty good bargain. The problem is that what they've sold is a castrated version of Windows which provides no benefits when you transfer from Windows XP Home to the equivalent version in Windows Vista.

As for third parties - personally they get what they deserve - they choose to neglect alternative operating systems, let Microsoft crush and bankrupt each company one by one and suffer the most painful humiliating defeats. The day they refused to create alternative operating system versions of their applications is they day I stopped caring - I can't wait till I see adobe go bankrupt given the products Microsoft is releasing, not only will it be better but cheaper.

the AMD chip i have in my computer right now can in theory run any X86 code, from 8-bit to 64-bit...

"Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?"

NO, I'd be surprised to see any x86 32 bit processors being sold. AMD ( & INTEL? ) presently only sell 64 bit versions. VIA has 64 bit too but I'm not sure if they still sell their 32 bit cpus.

Why make 32 bit version of the OS?

Well, because lots of people will still be running 32 bit computers ( not everyone will upgrade systems ). Microsoft would lose those customers to Linux or running *older* Windows ( = less revenue ).

If your 32bit processor runs everything you want it to then why even upgrade to 64bit processor? ( Just because it is the latest & greatest doesn't mean everybody has to go buy into it ).

Edited 2007-07-22 18:43

Its interesting about the three years, there have been mixed messages - first it was three years, then 2011 was thrown around, then another Microsoft person said it will be three years but might be longer if it isn't 'up to scratch'.

To me, if I was a Microsoft customer, I would be deeply concerned that they're worrying about the next release before getting their Windows Vista and Server 2008 sorted out properly.

As an antique dealer friend said to me - "...concentrate on this deal. Forget the next deal 'til you've tied this one up."