Windows still in 32-bit post-Vista
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 17th 2007 8:23PM
posted May 17th 2007 8:23PM
Calm down, first-gen Core Duo owners -- the rumors aren't true. Microsoft made some waves earlier today when Bill Laing, one of the general managers of the Windows Server division, was quoted at WinHEC saying that "Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit operating system (for desktops and servers) that we'll produce." While many took that "desktops and servers" part to include non-server OSes and assumed Vista was Microsoft's last 32-bit OS, Microsoft has since clarified the announcement, saying that while the future of Windows Server is indeed 64-bit only after 2008, no decision has been made about client versions of Windows, which is what most of us run. Whew. Although we've got to say we didn't really understand all the fuss -- if the next version of Windows takes as long to ship as Vista did, there aren't going to be too many 32-bit machines left anyway.[Via Slashdot]
I actually hope Vista is the last 32-bit OS... There needs to be a bigger push to 64-bit and IIRC, Vista was a long time ago planned to be 64-bit only.
We need to make the jump some time.
If the next version of windows takes as long as to ship as Vista there might not be a Microsoft left.
anti-microsoft statement restating the basic concept of this post
http://plugformysite.com
I agree with post 1, there is no reason to hang on to 32bit windows! Even now the 64 bit makes more sense then 32bit for the average user buying an OS for the next 5 years. I need that 16 exabyte RAM limit, there is no way 4GB will hold me until 2012.
Lets see how long it takes GaryOPA and Commador4eva to circumvent this update. They thought they had it down with their most recent 'disc-jitter' trick but apparently not.
I can see it now...
Xtreme firmware 6.0
Added:
-undetecable by Live servers
"If the next version of windows takes as long as to ship as Vista there might not be a Microsoft left."
That is an idiotic statment.
try reading it without bifocals on. Linux is picking up steam, Mac OS is making Windows look like last years news, technology changes everyday not every year. It might leave MS behind. Then again pigs might fly
"by the time new 64bit Windows comes out my 64bit cpu will be outdated."
It is shipping now. You could specifically buy XP64. You can buy specific OEM 64 bit copies of Vista, and in the retail boxes you get both 32 bit and 64 bit (at least in the worth while versions, dunno about starter or home basic).
3rdsun. Coming from a current Vista, Ubuntu, and OSX user, I have no idea what you're talking about. Vista is as secure as OSX, and nearly as stable. Vista has DX10. Vista and Ubuntu allow for customizable hardware. Ubuntu and OSX allow for greater "coolness" factor.
Pigs will indeed fly before Apple leaves MS behind. Apple is cool and all, but their business model limits their market.
Althought Windows is its most popular product, Microsoft makes more than just OS. The prevalence of its Office suite in the business world remain unchallenged and won't be in a long time. They still make some of the best hardware peripherals(keyboard/mouse) alongside Logitech. Their entertainment division is dumping money on xbox like crazy trying to capture the home entertainment market, and it's working... I just can't see how Microsoft would be going away anytime soon.
Using DX10 in an argument is junk to me. OpenGL/GL is still the way to go, esp. for cross-system development. I can't really get into a debate atm about DX vs GL without steam coming out of my ears, but Microsoft dropped the ball. They could have really united the graphics community but business is about the almighty dollar, so I don't blame them for that.
- Tony R.
I'm actually really upset that x64 isnt more popular. I decided to go get an AMD Athlon 64 processor and it's brought me nothing but issues. It makes sense to start upgrading.
I'd be very surprised if Vista will even install on whatever was the best PC money could buy when longhorn was announced, so who gives a toss?
Fact is, 64bits is not a revolution either;
I own a Core2Duo 2.33ghz cpu, have tested Vista and Xp in both flavours, and the fuss is just fuss... nothing is waayy faster...
64bit architecture just allows a better memory adressing and all, but it's not like the cpu's are running twice as fast...
Let's talk about SGDL (3d solid modeling with realtime raytrace shadows; no more polygons) now we're talking about revolution! This would just make games and 3d applications much better looking, realism'd be brought to new heights and so on..!
Or again, let's talk about Quantum Technology...! :\
64bit? nan, don't care unless you NEED the 8 or 16gb of RAM, which is quite improbable...
My 2¢
i honestly dont care if it is the last, 98se is still the best windows OS ever!!!!!!
Sorry for the n00b question. But besides the numbers what's the difference between a 32-bit machine and a 64-bit machine???
The big difference that I believe will make people adopt 64bit (eventually) is that it will address more memory. Right now 32 bit systems can address (use)4 GB of memory, 64 bit machines will be able to address WAY more memory (theoretically 16 exibytes or 17,179,869,184 gibibytes, through current 64 bit operating systems only allow 16-64GB of addressable space ).
As we add processors and processes to our machines ("hey I can now play that new DX10 game while streaming an HD movie to the other room and compressing all episodes of Happy Days, and opening office 2010, while automatically downloading data from the wireless USB in my car, phone, camera, and household appliances and merging it in a sensible way").
Right now this might look a little unlikely, but NRAM (or some other technology) will enable the next step up in price/performance for memory and 8 or 16 or 32 GB will be "normal and expected" in the next 2 or 3 years. Maybe every executable you use will be stored on non-volatile, accessible memory all the time and you'll only need to load media from your multi-terrabye harddisk (any document you write will be stored online so you can access it anywhere).
There are other advantages, like a larger command set that only someone better versed in compilers than I would be able to explain why it was really useful.
@noimagination ,
Thanks for the explanation.
I wanted to know the same too, which one's better? A Core Duo (which is 32-bit) at a higher GHz rating, or a Core 2 Duo (which is 64-bit), running at a lower GHz rating than the Core Duo? Which of the two would be a better choice in a laptop environment, and why?
Thanks!
All the people who make comments about 64-bit getting them over the 4GB limit are misinformed. Since the Pentium Pro, x86 CPUs have supported 64GB of physical RAM.
CarrotAndStick:
The only time you are going to notice a performance increase from 64bit is when you are using a fully 64bit OS, drivers, and applications. 64bit is undoubtably more powerful, but it also eats up more ram. On a laptop I would recommend sticking with 32-bit for now just because of the memory issue and more compatability. However, I've used 64bit flavors of linux on my laptop and been very happy. If you have 2GB of memory or more, the 64-bit version of Vista would be fine as long as you're not running super crazy apps. I'm running 64-bit vista on my desktop and it can easily fill 800MB of ram just idling.
That said, even if you go 32-bit, I would still recommend a Core 2 Duo in a laptop over a Core Duo, even one with a higher clock speed. At a given Ghz, the Core2 has ~5% better performance, which means improved performance per watt in the case of the slower CPU. And to be honest, I bought a Core 2 Duo for my latest notebook, and I would probably go with a Turion X2 for better battery life if I had to do it all over again, depends what kind of apps you run though. If your processors will tend to do a small amount of work over a long period, go Turion X2, if you tend to hammer harder at once, go Core 2. Both are excellent though and will serve you well.
Hope that helps.
Main advantage of Windows - is backward compatibility.
On server side it is easy: fewer software providers, short maintenance cycle - software gets ported to 64 bits.
On desktop side picture is not so clear: thousands and thousands of applications written in last decade still work OK under Vista. Going 64bit-only would of course obsolete all the applications forcing people to buy more/new software.
Well, anybody using Linux on AMD64/x64 for last two years can witness: shift to 64 bits is mixed blessing. It's problematic for many lazy developers and consequently brings no good to users. Most of server software was tested and used on 64 bit platforms for long time (PCs were late to 64 bit party) while lots of desktop software is of course wasn't.
And well, courtesy of AMD, we can have 64 bit programs along with 32 bit program on the same system. Me shivers thinking what would have happen if we had ended up using Intel's Itanic.
No, 64-bit OS's will still be able to run 32-bit apps, just like currently XP64 and Vista 64 have no problems running 32-bit applications. 16-bit apps are out, though.
I was really annoyed when I heard that Microsoft was going to make Vista a 32bit OS with a 64bit version. I heard when it was still Longhorn it would be 64bit exclusive and I made sure I got a 64bit chip to make use of the features.
Now I can't get Vista because I see no point to the 32bit versions, and most manufacturers haven't bothered making 64bit drivers as nearly everyone is running the 32bit version.
Try buying a pc with a 64bit Vista, you can't even though they all (few exceptions) ship with 64bit chips.
WOW, everyone has a 64bit chip running 15+ year old technology. That is something to surprise you.
The last time I checked it was because drivers for x64 were non existant since it was just windows xp 64, now that vista is out they should have went only x64 for vista and made UAC what it should have been and bit the bullet. The Hardware manufacture HAS to create the drivers for x64 and if they are not doing that its no wonder it hasn't caught on. At least Apple has control over there hardware so they can make sure stuff like that happens. If Microsoft had that same advantage where they could make/sell there own brand of PC it'd probably already be all x64 but of course everyone would say they are being a monopoly and there would be an uproar .. even though apple does that same thing.
Why does everyone have their panties in a punch about this? When Windows XP came out a Pentium IV 2.26GHz with an ATI 9700 was hot snot. I have no intention of using something like that to run Vista.
The same is going to apply for Core Duo machiens bought now. Windows 2012 or whatever it is when it comes out....a single or dual core system is gonna look just as quaint compared to the eight core monsters and PCI-E Gen 2, Sata Gen2, and all that other stuff that'll be out then.
I don't know many people that keep a computer for 5 years and keep upgrading it.
So Vista64 is about as compatible with 32 bit apps as 64bit Linux. Guess which way I'm going.
Ok, I realise that this question has been repeated over and over, and I also realise that I can not push this equation into my head,
And When it comes to computers, I have somewhat knowledge to a certain extent,
I have been a mac user for the last year or so, although previously I have had a Pc.
I ordered a Pc with quad core processor, 4GB ram, 8800GTX, etc.
top-spec stuff.
The question is,
Is it worth purchasing a 64-bit version of vista ultimate or just sticking with 32-bit.
I will be using all the office programmes most likely, downloading, web use, playing games, mostly WoW, halo 2, C&C.
And rarely i will be using Photoshop.
If anyone can just confirm to me which copy is ideal for me as i am a confused noob.
All help is hugely grateful.
Thanks
Mark.