Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows XP-64 Delayed Into 2005

Posted by simoniker on from the better-late-than-ever dept.

vincecate writes "Although Windows XP on AMD64 was demoed at ComDex in 2002, Microsoft is now delaying the release till the first half of 2005. Given Microsoft's history on this product, it could be even more than a year before it is really released. At least one person at Intel says they did not ask Microsoft to delay the release. In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta. Though Sun started well after Microsoft, they are progressing well on their Solaris port to AMD64 and could well release earlier."

10 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. MS vs. Linux by mfh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really, I'm not sure why they are bothering with XP-64. Longhorn is due out soon enough... I'm just not sure I'm interested in paying for the product that will come out just before Longhorn. It's like if you had a choice between buying a flintlock pistol or a single-shot bullet operated colt, when you could wait and spend a little more money on a colt six-shooter. My point is that there's not much difference between XP and XP-64 compared to XP and Longhorn. I'm moderately satisfied with XP, apart from all the annoying Microsoft crap that comes with it, and there's no telling how much *more* of that will ship with XP-64 or even Longhorn. So I wouldn't be upgrading to get rid of the annoyances in Microsoft's products, just in some hopes of better features! I wouldn't hope for better security in future Microsoft products, because that would be futile, IMHO. The best solution for going 64 today looks like a Linux!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:MS vs. Linux by Roark+Meets+Dent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is switching to a 64-bit distribution basically a transparent move, or will a lot of programs that were available in the regular 32-bit version not be there or be broken?

  2. Quality Driven by chattycathy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The delays are quality driven," a Microsoft statement said. The company needs more time for tuning and testing "in order to meet the high quality requirements of our customers."

    Doesn't that mean they have to pack more crap into it so it runs slower than molasses in winter?

    Really, though, it's nice if they are working on the quality of the product. Maybe this one won't ever crash, eh?

    --
    I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah!
  3. Re:Windows is not designed for these things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS.

    Except for when Windows (NT) ran on Power PC, DEC Alpha, AXP, and MIPS. They even had a prototype for the Sun SPARC.

  4. It's a shame, really... by sczimme · · Score: 2, Interesting


    These people that are fixated on the current X86/PC world have missed out on the elegant hardware of Sun, SGI, and DEC.

    Yes, kids, there was a world before Linux became popular.

    /Feeling old today

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  5. Re:supported linux versions available as well by thisisnotmyid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hell, even Debian has it already. How slow can Microsoft be?

  6. Re:Funny timing... by _|()|\| · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On the one hand, the fact that it's taking so long looks bad for AMD64. On the other hand, the folks at AMD wisely delivered top-notch 32-bit performance. In some ways, this delay further vindicates the AMD64 design, despite all the x86 haters. I'm not sure you can market any incompatible architecture to the PC market, with the possible exception of OS X on PowerPC. AMD64 is the perfect bridge.

    If Intel gets another year to catch up, that's okay. In fact, it may lend credibility to a market in which AMD is poised to excel. Initial reports are that Intel's EMT64 implementation is lacking. It may take a generation or two for them to catch up.

    After the recent price cuts, my Athlon 64 is in the mail. While I will install Windows 2000 to get my Doom 3 fix, this machine will probably spend more time running SuSE Linux 9.1.

  7. MS Still 16 bit? by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We all know that 10% of Windows 3.1 was 32 bit (with Win32s installed) Windows 95 make it 50%, so where does that leave NT-XP? I'm sure these things have 16 bit code still in them. It maybe down to 1%, but it isn't all gone is it?

    (We don't have to count code for 16 bit compatibility)

    Linux and OS2 were the only entirely 32-bit maintstream PC OS from the start.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  8. Re:Solaris has been 64-bits since 1995 by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just as an FYI, Windows NT's internal architecture has been 64-bit since it was designed back in the late '80s. The 32-bit releases are downward ports. Dave Cutler's not an idiot. (Oh, and before anybody starts talking about 32-bit'isms in Win32, realize that Win32 is a layer on top of Windows NT and isn't the native OS interface)

  9. Re:Better late than buggy by Master+Bait · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess so, but their inability to produce a saleable X86-64 port speaks volumes of the quality of the foundation of their product.

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman