Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Require 64-bit Processors
Nom du Keyboard writes "According to News.com Microsoft has said they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases. These include Exchange 12, Longhorn Server R2 and Small-Business Edition Longhorn Server among others. I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime."
So is this bad news or good news, or?? come'on, give me something for my daily microsoft bashing spree!!
I think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to
bit that particular bullet last year, it's not like it's expensive to go 64 bit these days. And your 32 bit machine will run fine with all its current 32bit OSs and software, dont worry *pats you on the head*
which is totally what she said
They have also said a 32-bit version of the Longhorn server would be available.
i alsID=7046
http://www.redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?Editor
... 32-bit code. Heck, even XP still has some 16-bit programs by default. Sysedit and edit.com are just a couple examples. It's safe to say that 32-bit code will be with us for quite a while. Remember, 16-bit apps didn't die when Windows NT 3.1 (and later, Windows 95) came out.
Anyone have anything debunking this?
I don't get it.
Someone didn't proof read this - since when have Microsoft released processors?
Microsoft is pushing the 64bits, so it will become the standard and will be cheaper. On the other hand it will force people to buy new hardware, every one knows that the new office will have a new, incompatible, format. People will start using it and will force others to install a new 64bits CPU.
Off course people could simply return the software that don't work and the adoption rate will be slower then before...
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Finally a new use for my Commodore 64!! I cannot wait to hand input hex strings for Exchange 12 ;)
>2GB minimum memory requirement! :)
*this space intentionally left blank
"One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
Naturaly they won't be available for 64-bit PPC architecture.
I think they meant "future product releases." You can't say that processors include "Exchange 12, Longhorn Server R2 and Small-Business Edition Longhorn Server"
I guess this is good news for gamers. If MS starts to enforce 64Bit machines, then game developers will also turn around and start making more for 64Bit machines. Of course this will still take some time as the 32Bit machines will still be available for quite some time. As for companies it is probalby not so nice, because MS constantly forces them to upgrade without need. And as somebody else said: Some time we have to bite the bullet anyway, so why not now?
First of all, yes this is probably a good move on their part. Yet, its not like they can dictate anything. Yes, they have a monopoly but there are cracks in it. There are alternatives now. The really ironic thing is they're talking up 64bit but they were the last to even have compatibility for it.
they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases
So Microsoft is going to require 64 bit processors for all the processors Microsoft(not a hardware company) releases? My brain hurts....
From the article: "IT professionals will be able to consolidate the total number of servers running 64-bit (processors) and users will be able to have bigger mailbox size."
How big are these mailboxes that you need 64-bit processing space??? *boggle*
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
To all my homies running 386SX, ARM and 68020 print servers: Open source repruhzent!
Good lord... won't a required move to 64 bit architecture put all those gaming addicts with drug addictions into a heroin induced frenzy? I mean if you think it's hard to kick the 32 bit habit.. now they'll be selling their own mothers to get the next copy of Duke Nukem 64ever...
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
you are so brilliant!
"IT professionals will be able to consolidate the total number of servers running 64-bit (processors) and users will be able to have bigger mailbox size," he said.
twice bigger, i guess?
And whoever said that Microsoft was a key player in forcing people to upgrade their hardware?!?
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
"I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime." means changing operating systems to an open one which isn't so restrictive.
Now even Microsoft has a reason not to worry about bloat software...those 64bit CPU requirements will help keep the current trends of bloated code for years to come!
What's the old line "Buy a 4893439834392MHZ CPU, so you can reboot faster!"
Ok, my daily Microsoft bash is out of the way for today.
Stop fucking whoring Digg so blatantly . you are giving the site a bad reputation
I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime.
That should be we as in "we MS windows users" that have to bite this bullet thank you very much.
We as in "we people with high memory requirements" will need 64 bits because we actually need them.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Slashdot is only falling behind because that site doesn't include all the dupes.
According to News.com Microsoft has said they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases.
I think "all" should be "some" and "processor releases" should be "software releases"... Here's CNET's take on it:
Microsoft said some upcoming products, including its Exchange 12 e-mail server, will run only on 64-bit processors.
It seems to be mostly a focus on 64-bit server products from now on to me, and far from a total switch to 64-bit.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
For a failing company, Microsoft sure is making a lot of demands. What's that old saying? 'Beggars can't be choosers'?
Doesn't it always?
When the hell was the last time you had to use "edit.com" to edit a file or "sysedit" to adjust your system settings under windows xp??
If those were the only 2 16-bit apps you could find, then just delete them, they aren't likely required by the system to run, just there for teh sake of being there.
Windows XP 64bit has all the 16 bit subsystems removed, and can't run any 16bit software.
4GB memory minimum ;)
1GB graphics card
12.1 192bit surround sound card
IPv6
I mean, just a short while ago, MS didn't even have an OS that worked properly (ie, utilized more than 32-bit compatibility) on 64-bit processors. I find it difficult to believe that they're so confident in their code's stability and have adequately tested it... Oh, yeah, this is MS, company who forces upgrades for extra fluff features rather than real usability, functionality, or stability. Nevermind.
There is no problems with linux pumping out binaries for x86, x86-64, PowerPC, ARM, and a multitude of other architectures. Why does windows only run on 1 type of processor? Wouldn't they have a much bigger market segment if the allowed you to run it on a larger variety of hardware? Microsoft used to have an Alpha version of NT. Did nobody want it? or was it just so bad that nobody could use it? This move will make more people shy away from upgrading their MS software. Software upgrades usually aren't *that* expensive, but if you have to upgrade your servers just to upgrade your software, then a lot less people will be doing it.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
In view of the future 64-bit requirement, can anyone update this neat quote?
Windows 9x: noun. A collection of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor. Written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
--- Anonymous
w00t
I agree !!
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
Is a 64-bit 5GHz processor, with .5TB ram, .25TB video ram, LN2 based cooling system and 6TB Hard drive......
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
If you don't know what ReactOS is, it is a replacement for Windows which aims to get 100% binary compatible. http://www.reactos.org/
:) ).
Of course there is a long way to go still, but since the aim is to stay binary compatible, if they progress as good as in teh last two years, then this could become a serious thread if it would be adopted by companies to avoid hardware changes when they don't even need them. And of course, since it is an Open Source OS you still have room for improvement and fixing of exploits that may be discovered. Which is more than you can expect from a Microsoft Windows.
Just like Wine does on Linux, but with the advantage that there is no Linux underneath it. It is a fully working OS on it's own.
One of the initial motivations for this project was to brake this MS enforced cycle, and so far they made good progress. They are already capable of running some serious stuff like Unreal Tournament (Serious in terms of implementation not neccessarily for companies
Huh, digg. kuro5hin.org did it first, and fark.com does it funnier. When will you begin cross-promoting with myspace?
Let's fgace facts, Longwait and Office 2**n have nothing compelling enough to warant upgrading. But this move ensures that you will not be able to find any 64 bit machines that don't have them on it (Even if you don't want them at all)
Plain and simple... It's their attempt at replicating Windows 95 all over again.
Recent news covered the maturing of the WINE platform for running Win32 binaries on x86 *nix operating systems
How ironic that just as we reach the point where there is a good chance of a Win32 binary running on WINE, the big move to Win64 applications begins in earnest.
No, I don't believe this is a prime or even a significant motivating factor.. it's just the way things are.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
We will soon be looking back at the 64-bit processor as archaic and quaint.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
cool sites --> thanks !
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
MS Edit is the closest equivalent to vi in the MS world (except for vi itself, of course) and is still the most effective, user-friendly text editor that Microsoft has created. You don't try to code in notepad/wordpad/Word, do you?. Sysedit isn't really all that useful, no.
Don't you guys remember the Digital Alpha ?, it had a port of Windows NT 4.0 back in the 90's
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
I would require Microsoft to ship software with fewer bugs and which doesn't waste 90% of the resources to do simple things like (real) operating system or email servers!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
But who seriously comes here expecting accuracy or objectivity. if it has anything at all to do with Microsoft (and even some articles that don't), the summary will be worded in such a way to take a slam at Microsoft.
This is largely, non-news, and has almost no effect on end users as this is talking about server software due out in the 2007-2009 timeframe (2-4 years from now).
In a world where 8-bit processors are still more dominant than 32-bit ones ...
how the fuck did the parent GET A +5 SCORE!!!
We'll still be using 32-bit cores well into the next decade, well into the one after that.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Most of you guys have no clue what Microsoft is actually doing. They are going to require some of their *server* products in the future to run on 64 bit processors - not home PCs. A lot of their server products today run on 32-bit and 64-bit processors already. I bet most of their new installs of these server products are already being done on 64 bit processors so they're just going to make things simpler. I doubt anyone will complain.
Pity then that about 80% of the posters on digg are moronic AOL LOL!!!11 OMGWTFBBQ kiddies who lace their posts with casual swearing and rarely offer any of the insight normally seen on /. replies. First doesn't always mean best. Digg has a LONG way to go. Plus the non-numan intervention means that people can submit 5 year old articles on things like SSH tunnelling, and all the diggers (again demonstrating their intense tech backgrounds) mod it up like it's the most insightful thing they've seen this month.
And what about Itanium? (The other 64-bit Microsoft supports)
One of the things moving to the x86-64 cores get you is access to more RAM. I built a home system with 4x1024M sticks of RAM. With a 32 bit OS (like Win2K and WinXP in my case), you cannot access all 4G of RAM (easily). Windows reports back anywhere from 3.2-3.5G of RAM - in part due to the PCI devices mapping resources, etc.
With Win2k3-x86 and WinXP-64, most of the hoops (and startup switches) you use just go away. It just works. Same applied to Linux - moving to an A64 build just worked.
For server operations, more RAM is good. This is not as evil as it sounds.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
By making Longhorn run poorly on 512 Mb and a single-core CPU less than 2 ghz... they'll finally make Dad upgrade to that dual-core dual-CPU, 2 Gb that he should have got?
Sorry for going off... when I put on these sunglasses, everything says "Consume" and your Mom starts looking real ugly.
Windows 95 required a floating point processor. Did all of you complain then? ZOMG! I have to buy a co-processor!?!?! I like my 386SX!!!>!!!>!>!>!111
Here's a simple solution: Don't upgrade your OS. Stick with what works on your hardware. If it works for you now, why switch?
While we're on the subject of requirements, I have a few I'd like to give to Microsoft. I'm sure we can all pitch in and come up with a practical list of improvements.
I've just specced up a server for a small business client of mine... they have 7 desktops at the moment, perhaps growing to 10 within a year or two (nature of the business is such that they couldn't possibly have more than 15 or 20 staff). Buying a new server from Dell in order to run their new database software on I just specc'd up redundant everything - hot-swap PSUs & scsi drives, dual-proc Xeons... for this it actually only costs a few hundred quid more than a low-end server (MS licensing is a bigger cost) and I figure it'll pay for itself should they ever need it. I figured a high-end server like this allows for some "future proofing".
The question is: since Dell only supply Intel processors, will this machine be supported by the future MS releases? Are Xeons these days EMT64 capable?
....will you still need me, when I'm 64?
Yes, apparently.
"a new motherboard, CPU, memory and graphics card is a considerable amount"
Well, they have complete systems on Pricewatch for $250. You'd need more memory and a good graphics card, but even with a total price of around $500 I'd call that a very good deal.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
This shouldn't be a shock to anybody. Anybody who's implemented Exchange understands the important role 64 bit architectures play for the Exchange platform. It may not say it on the outside of the box but empirical data has shown that a small cluster of dual CPU, multi-gig RAM boxes is required to provide email services to a half dozen people. 64bit is critical to Exchange breaking out of its workgroup mail server role, I wouldn't be surprised if MS was having backroom talks with Cray or the Blue Gene folk over at IBM.
Does that mean it can't run DOS programs? Just looking for some clarification because I'd hate to buy a 64 bit processor that can't run some of my old games (at least, not without an emulator like DOSBox).
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Back when the DEC guys were making NT work properly, Microsoft was in the process of killing all ties with DOS. The talk back then was how they would no longer support 16 bit hardware/software when the great and wonderful Windows90 er 1 er 2... 5 came out. Microsoft's OS division has tunel vision.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Xeons are EMT64 capable. ref: http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/ dc/64bit/index.htm
I hope MS has beefed up their migration tools AND simplified them.
I also remember a free IA-64 emulator from Intel. I wonder if that could be used to run these 64 bit apps on i386?
What is 64bit mode called anyway, super-protected-mode??
Not in their raw form, something like DosBox is needed and does work.
64 bit processors are a joke if they still only support 4gb of ram.. technically you should be able to have MILLIONS of gigabytes of ram with a 64bit chip. The only reason 32 bit chips have 4gb is because they can only support 4 billion memory address locations.
...when Longhorn Server comes _really_ out, will only be a few 32bit servers around.
Oh my god, you mean people will have to upgrade their hardware to run new software? Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Keep in mind that this is only for SERVERS.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
Thats the funniest reply i've read for a while --> yes you are right !
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
No doubt that Microsoft will be with us for a long time, but some of these directions they have taken are questionable to me as an end-user. Support for 64 bit processing is excellent, and they're not talking about Windows Vista requiring 64-bit processors only, which is also good. Then there is the whole DRM thing, which unfortunately is an innevitable future in our lives no matter who is providing the software (except maybe Linux and open-source solutions). Then there is the news that Microsoft will freeze their support for OpenGL in Windows Vista at version 1.4, focusing their attention on using their propritary Direct3D engine. But here is the kicker, they will layer their OpenGL support over the top of Direct3D. This basically is an emulator that can run OpenGL. So if I understand correctly, OpenGL performance on Windows will take a major hit, and no extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations. Now all these decisions make good sense from a business point of view, but from the consumer's point of view, it absolutely sucks! From the public beta of Vista, you can see things like softlinks and a "Users" directory instead of C:/Documents and Settings/. Also MS plans on getting rid of drive letters. So while they're leaning towards a *NIX ish apporach to things, which is a good thing, they're also screwing us with more "features" that cripple open software and portibility between OSes. Which makes me have many mixed feelings about the whole thing. That said, I will be waiting until SP1, and probably until MS drops support of XP before I make any kind of consideration on switching to Vista. For a final thought, since Windows 3.11 for workgroups, all of these stupid names like XP and Vista should stop. I think that Microsoft should go back to a version naming convention. What would it be at now? Windows 7.0 or something like that. Sorry for going so so far offtopic, but I had to get this off my chest.
As long as apache httpd and sendmail compile on 32 bit intel platforms, there's no compelling need to switch to 64 bit processors.
And will that news arrive outside my door with a meowing cat?
Argh!! Someone *please* tell me what that's from. I remember that part of the beginning, but I don't remember the name of the show, and now it's really bugging me. Anyone?
This is very good news for two companies: AMD and Sun. AMD, for the obvious reason that they have a mature 64-bit product line and now have a good argument to make against Intel even in risk-averse markets (that really won't like being forced into Intel's immature 64 bit line when Microsoft is obviously using AMD in development). This might explain why AMD recently launched a major channel push to get its processor to institutional buyers who have a pro-Intel bias. (evidently most corporate buyers are perverts who gain some sexual satisfaction from watching people in moon suits, or the Blue Man Group, gyrating, or watching entertainment industry stars in people's laps - over time one expects such pro-Intel perverts to be rooted out and AMD's more technical pitch to win).
Sun also has a mature 64-bit processor line and is now loudly bragging about the low power draw - 52% less than Intel architecture to do the same work. They are pushing this as "green computing" though there's no mention of how much tantallum (the worst of all possible minerals to extract) or gallium arsenide (the worst of all possible minerals to dispose of) is going into their chips or boxes - chalk that up as simple "greenwash". But the power-draw argument is compelling now as electricity prices are certain to skyrocket for many good reasons that will never go away. So if companies are looking hard at energy efficiency they are going to find a good reason to shift off Intel - and if they have to go 64-bit there's a good argument to shift the servers to UltraSPARC since these days there's no software problems running a mostly-Microsoft desktop environment with Sun-based hosts.
If anyone does know of any such problems, please, do, let us know...
ConTEXT!! Of course, it's not text mode.
It's worth it ;)
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself
...does it mean that they will remove THE FUCKING 4 GB LIMIT ?!?!
(Quick - somebody trademark something!)
Or are we (thankfully) over with the whole 'X' thing?
Windows Vista, which has slipped to Q4 2006, could be called Windows VIsta
----------
Any problem can be made unsolvable if there are enough meetings made to discuss it.
Isn't this a bit too quick? Not too long ago, their products wouldn't even use 64-bit CPUs (and only work in 32-bit mode), and now they're demanding them?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I guess Microsoft is feeling the pain of shipping their software only in binary form. Rather than paying the cost and compiling and shipping for both architectures (like Apple might do), they are putting the cost on the customer by supporting only one architecture per product.
Oh well, one more advantage of open source promoted from theoretical to real status. And yet another instance of Microsoft pushing the hardware upgrade threadmill. Keep running, hamsters! Run or you'll fall down! Not that anyone should be surprised by that, though.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Windows 2000 would only run certified applications
Windows XB, the Xbox OS based on the Windows 2000 kernel, does run only certified applications.
He is mistaking a recompile of an original 16 bit app for a 16 bit app. Insightful?
I would still be using edit.com today had they ported it a long time ago. The only reason I stopped using it was the excessive CPU usage that was incurred on behalf of NTVDM!
I would still be using "copy con" too if the functionality still existed!
^Z
No, these 64bit processors have full 16bit x86 compatability, you just won't be able to run XP64, but running DOS, XP, or Win2k as a seperate OS will work just fine. In fact if you have less than 4GB of RAM is is almost pointless to have XP64 installed. Win9X probably won't work, but that is because of (unrelated) bugs that prevent win9X form working on 2GHz or faster CPU's or have more than 512MB of RAM.
All I have to say is Kudos to apple for keeping MS distracted while we make linux better.
I suspect that Microsoft was charging Digital and Motorola for the privilege of having WinNT run on their hardware. Digital went under (yeah, I know about Compaq) and Motorola apparently couldn't do the cost/benefit justification.
If you've ever run any large site implementations of MS Exchange or MS-SQL, your limiting factor on x86 is almost always memory sometimes I/O...rarely CPU. I/O has scaled quite nicely with the ability to buy cheap PCI-X HBAs and lots of them and fast CPUs to handle interrupts, so if you've figured all that out, most shops end up being constrained by memory. This move will put serious pressure on the commercial *nix world, especially Oracle, DB2 implementations and to a lesser extent Notes on *nix.
They are only enforcing 64bits for *future* *server* software ... Sure, Athlon XPs, Pentium M, some Pentium 4 and Semprons do not run x64.
Pentium M is the biggie. The cost of energy is going up as oil wells run dry, and so is the price of real estate as the planet's population increases. Blade servers are moving to processors that can handle more transactions per joule so that they can pack more computing into a smaller volume while still powering it and cooling it properly. Therefore, there is a need for something that can run 64-bit programs with the power consumption of a Pentium M processor.
The 64-Bit Editon of Windows XP still runs 32-Bit software. The requirements for a 64-Bit processor when AMD built theirs was that it had to be x86 compatible and able still run 32 and 16-bit apps. So, your 32-Bit games will still work on a 64-bit WinXP Athlon 64 box or a 64-Bit Longhorn Athlon 64 box. Intel has yet to release a processor in this class that's comparible.
This makes me wonder why Apple didn't switch to the Athlon 64 rather than the Intel architecture they are adopting now. You'd think they'd go with the better technology since they are going from 64-Bit PowerPC to a 32-Bit Intel processors (since Intel has yet to release an x86 compatible 64-bit chip). Why didn't they just go from 64-bit PowerPCs to 64-bit Athlon 64s.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
The only remaining pain with x64 is 32bit PCI devices which still can't access RAM beyond the 4Gb boundary even when on a full blown 64bit OS.
Did somebody say "conventional memory"?
The old and the new server both run linux very easily, so the transition from one CPU to the next is getting easier and easier if you just switch OS first.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Not trying to be a prick here, but... please, PLEASE don't compare MS Edit to any incarnation of vi... There is nothing in the Microsoft world that is anywhere near vi (except vi clones ported by third-parties who couldn't stand what there was in MS).
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
The title, the most that will probably get seen, says it all. With bios manufacturers coerced by government sockpuppets and industry oligarchies into putting DRM into the bios, 64 bit processors are being DRM'ed as well. The existing 32 bit procs still plug into the older safe motherboards with no DRM bios, so bios in the processor here could probably be bypassed. Not so with the 64 bit models. These require new motherboards even if the socket may be
the same in order to take advantage of the 64 bit instruction set. By requiring 64 bit procs, they are also requiring new motherboards, all of which dovetail with the new DRM operating system making the cycle and process of digital slavery complete. Get new stuff in pursuit of some dumb game that will be in the bargain bins in less than a year, and get enserfed in Gate's and Ballmer's hog heaven of DRM. And they are not the only members of the oligarchy that want you to sell your digital soul for a 'mess of pottage'
(to quote George Washington on an apathetic population's proclivity to sell out their rights in failed attempts to buy security---how prophetic he was). Look at Sony and the DRM made out of stolen GPL code that is now being called a dangerous virus. Betcha no Sony execs ever go to jail! Those Sony execs ought to be put into the same prison that Mitnik was forced to go to! All the supposed new software are just bloatware remakes of older software of identical function with few or no new practically usable features, but containing ever larger amounts of malware that you could well do without. Hate to say it, but the golden age of computer expansion is OVER. Only suckers buy new stuff if the old stuff is still working. Go out and buy the old stuff while you still can and use it. The hogs in restraint of trade, who will never be prosecuted by present politics as they have bought both parties, have managed to kill it. With it dies all digital research and real progress in all non socialist countries. I suppose in this way capitalists really do provide the rope th hang themselves, just as old Soviet Komisar Vishinski said in Moscow in the 1930's. This hogishness, by the way, is the real reason the 'Free Trade of the America's Treaty' negociations died in Brazil and Venezuela. Hugo Sanches of Venezuela wants no part of the United States interference in its trade policies, and Lula Da Silva of Brazil wants no part of some agreement that would break up his very successfull linux conversion project in Brazil called Software Libre. For the WAY of Linux and the WILL of Brazil's poor for progress and advancement will lead Brazil to progress the likes of which it has never known, and they will together do it by not being beholden to foreign monopolistic controls.
They all want large inboxes, massive inboxes, inboxes who's size cannot be expressed with rational numbers. Ok so maybe that's a bit of an exegeration, but still. They bitch about our 100MB inbox limit all the time (done more for the speed of sendmail than the limit of space).
But needing something larger than a 32-bit number? Well ya, actually. So Office 2000 has a stupid, but somewhat understandable feature in it that I never knew about. If you are running it on an NT OS, where there's a file system that can support files larger than 2GB you can run in to a problem. It will proceed to write more data than 2GB to the file, but then be unable to open it back up. This isn't a problem on filesystems that stop at 2GB files, of course, which is how the bug got in there in the first place.
Ok but, realisticly, who cares? Who the hell has 2GB worth of mail saved up? Our users, that's who. I don't know about this because it's random trivia, I know about it because it's a problem I had to fix. This guy managed to collect more than 2GB of saved mail in Outlook and it broke.
So I dunno why these people do it, but there will be a market for 64-bit mail stores.
XP-64 will no longer run DOS or Win16 programs. It has WOW32 (Windows on Windows 32 bit) to run 32-bit code, but no more WOW16. If you wish to run old DOS programs under it, you'll need a full-blown emulator. Personally I recommend the use of DOSBox, even if you are using 32-bit Windows, as it does a much better DOS emulation than what comes in XP. DOS programs require hardware access of the kind that cannot be given in a protected environment. XP doesn't emulate a whole lot of that so plenty won't run (it was mainly added to NT for business apps, not games) but DOSBox emulates the large majority of it.
Also note this is an OS limitation, not a processor limitation as far as I know. I believe the 64-bit processors have no problem stepping all the way back to 16-bit mode, it is just that XP-64 contains not provision to run 16-bit code.
Name one other platform where there's any significant amount of demand. For desktops and servers, you are well past 90% with x86, so that's most of the market right there. Now let's look at the remaning markets:
PowerPC: The only computers that qualify as something that would use Windows are Macs. Those are out partally because they'll be x86 soon enough but mainly because you aren't going to spend all that money on a Mac and then go and use it to run Windows. You'd get an x86 instead.
Power: Highend IBM servers only. Maybe the new HPC Windows might be of intrest there, but I doubt it. If IBM asks, they might port it but not otherwise.
Sparc: Sun and MS aren't really on the best terms and these days Sparc performance it's as impressive as it was. I very much doubt either company has any intrest in seeing Windows on Sparc.
ARM: Small or embedded devices only. Windows CE indeed does run on ARM (and MIPS, and PPC, and more) but there's no reason to bring the desktop OS to it.
Basically there's just no reason. The other problem would be lack of software. Binaries from one platform aren't going to run on another. Well software makers are going to be slow to release multi-platform, espically if there's any assembly they need to rewrite.
All in all with the current situation, it makes so sense ot have anything but an x86 release.
Actually the 16-bit pieces only exist as a few legacy apps (included for compatibility reasons) and the 16-bit system libraries which just translate all calls into 32-bit calls.
Windows XP is the NT 5.1 kernel, a 100% 32-bit protected mode operating system. It has been that way since the beginning, back when NT was actually Microsoft & IBM's joint OS/2 project.
FYI: The 64-bit version of Windows no longer supports running 16-bit programs, except for an explicitly defined list of 16-bit installer bootstrap applications (older versions of InstallShield/Wise/etc used the 16-bit bootstrap apps to launch their actual 32-bit setup apps).
My guess is that Vista won't even support that and the 16-to-32 libraries (Wow32) won't be included.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Just think if it were Linux running on a 64-bit processor!
their entire infrastructure is obsolete.
Microsoft is really going out of their way to antagonize small business with the hardware requirements of Vista and now their server upgrade policy.
A lot of these companies just upgraded from Windows NT - after stretching it out for years past its obsolescence - to Windows 2000 or 2003 Server - usually just to run a better version of Exchange. Now they have to do it again.
They are not going to be happy.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
As opposed to "we Linux users who are already running on 64 bit hardware and only bothered reading this thread to see what the fuss was about".
--MarkusQ
So while these OSs require 64-bit capable processors, it has no impact on your software assuming the software doesn't include a driver.
Gates doesn't seem to understand why you might need more than 4gb of memory...
s _longhorn_is_going/
;)
.02
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/15/bill_gate
Just like he didn't understand why you might need more than 640K
It's those sort of pronouncements that convince me that Gates et. al. do no understand technology and high end computing needs.
my
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
There does eventually come a point where the statement 'N bits ought to be enough for anyone' becomes true, at least for address space if not for data bus bandwidth as well. 2**256 exceeds the estimated number of particles in the universe by quite a bit. The jump from 16-bit to 32-bit was peanuts. The jump from 32 to 64 takes us into the stratosphere. The earliest PC hard drives from 1983 were 5MB. A respectable 2005-vintage 300GB drive is 60,000 times the size of that 5MB. 2**64 bytes represents a single drive which would be as large as 61,000,000 300GB drives. Even if that becomes constraining (??), I doubt we'd need to double the bus again to 128 bits. Humanity will evolve beyond its physical existence (or get blown to bits) before then. Mr. Moore can't be right forever.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
I don't find this surprising at all - primarily b/c it is the 64-bit platforms that are using the BIOS's that have the Trusted Computing/Paladium platform that Microsoft has soooo wanted to use for DRM (EFI, and its Phoenix equivalent), and then add the NX bit utilization that's available, and the fact that things like Sony's rootkit won't work unless Microsoft approves of it.
Oh - and don't forget how memory hungry Windows is, nothing like needing to require more than 4GB memory just to run the OS - well...it's not that bad...yet.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Microsoft's already on the 64-bit ball, with XP x64. Or 64. Or whatever the hell they're calling it, and not that other one for those horrible Intel chips that not even Microsoft believes people use. ;)
I swear to Bob, I've never seen Windows respond so fast. Most applications are still crap... Whether it's because the majority are still 32 bit, or just programmed pathetically bad is anyone's guess. But the core OS itself, mainly, explorer.. Dear god, sirs, I have never seen a more responsive Windows.
I've actually never seen a less problematic OS from MS, either. Aside from driver support (mainly, it's like using Linux - you can't buy $10 crap and expect it to work) and a few ridiculously coded installers, everything is flawless.
The installer thing is irritating, but can hardly be blamed on MS. I've actually only noticed it with games - you'll get a box whining about how your OS is unsupported. Har. Yet you can easily find workarounds for damned near anything via Google, and the program itself will run fine.
Now, MS already has experience dealing with ye olde newly-common 64 bit processors. That they want to consider pushing them onto the market is a damned good thing.
You're missing a break statement after the REQUIRED_FOR_CLIENT and REQUIRED_FOR_SERVER cases, causing a most likely unwanted fallthrough to default.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Yes, estimates are we'll have to bite this bullet somewhere in 2018.
If Microsoft were to require 64bit processors for all desktop machines, it could be the gentle nudge that is needed to put several people who are one the edge on the linux side of the line. I would certantly take advantage of all the CHEAP old pentium IV computers and install Linux on them.
Just a side note. I use windows. I have tried Linux and have always gone running back because I got frustrated with something I couldn't get to work the way I wanted it to. (my own fault yes, but I still try)
As for winblows PCs I won't let people have less than 512 MB ram. I wouldn't want to be under 1GB personally.
When the hell was the last time you had to use XP? I sure don't use XP, at least not by choice. It doesn't do anything useful that I can't already do in previous versions of Windows, or other OSes for that matter.
BTW, I'm the same AC who wrote the grandparent post, if it matters. I am willing to bet that the person who modded me overrated uses nothing but XP. What a pity.
Run one of those yourself. Open Task Manager. Click Options and check Show 16-bit tasks (only if it isn't already checked.) Watch ntvdm.exe open. They ARE 16-bit.
I ran Windows XP 64 bit and it was series of never ending disasters. Best of all was having to dredge up a floppy drive to get SATA support.
This is my sig.
This is presented in a 'there is no choice' light, when really, it should be presented in a 'Microsoft is going to force people to upgrade' light. I believe they could build not x64 based stuff. They choose not to because it benefits them.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but I think blaming misunderstandings about technology for business decisions gets people nowhere.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
"both Intel and AMD have deployed AMD64 accross their entire desktop and server product lines, IIRC."
The subject says it all. Does Intel run AMD64 chips now? That'd be funny actually.
I read the comparison to vi to be not in terms of editing functionality, but "no matter what Windows box you happen to run into, no matter how hosed, MS Edit is there, and will work."
As in the reason everyone says to learn vi, even if you can't stand it, because someday, you'll run into a hosed UNIX box, and vi will be the only thing available and working for you to edit config files.
Then again, I'm an emacs nut. What do I know?
This illustrates one of the many fundamental differences between closed-source and open-source development models. With closed-source, an important part of your competitive strategy is raising the barriers to entry for competitors: the more features you add to your product, the more work it is for your competitors to come up with answers to those features.
But this strategy has a cost: it raises the barriers for your own entry to new markets. In the case of Windows, it makes it much more expensive to port the code to new processors. In fact it has reached the point where it's not worth Microsoft's while to run it on anything other than x86 processors. Whereas something like Debian Linux can offer essentially full functionality on 11 different processor architectures, even though the Debian and Linux kernel projects combined cannot muster anywhere close to the total of 60,000 people working for Microsoft.
I've found my knowledge of ed quite useful at least once (some corrupted filesystem, was unable to load shared libraries, and the only editor available was the good ol' standard editor), where not even vi was available.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
...so once these hit the market and the general public realizes they need to upgrade, only hardware with DRM will be for sale right?
So now we know how they will push that crap down our throats.
THE CARMACK!
Edit is fast & great for bringing up a Unix text file and then saving as dos/windows type text file, I do the keystrokes in less than 1 second, and let the machine catch up and do it while I'm on to the next thing
just another reason to use *nix for servers...
I'm not sure why you are so fascinated with my penis, Hal Porter. Talk about it if you must, but please, consider thinking about other topics. Topics like Linux, baseball, and reading.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I have thanks for you for indulging my lazy inquisitiveness.
Don't count on Scansoft to sell you 64bit software anytime soon. I got an email from them stating that they don't even have 64bit machines inhouse to test thier software.