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."
... 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.
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
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?
It's not really either. Technology progresses, new Windows requires latest processors... it's scarcely news at all.
What is interesting, though, is that there are still a lot of 32-bit processors around which are perfectly viable. Microsoft didn't absolutely require a 32-bit CPU until Windows '95; previous releases could always run in Standard or Real mode if you didn't happen to have the hardware to use 386 Enhanced. When that release came out in late 1995, hardly anyone was still running a 286. But when MS goes to pure 64-bit, there may well still be a lot of legacy Pentium IVs around running just fine. Maybe we'll be able to get these guys to consider alternatives at that point?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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)
Well, as a linux/freebsd chap myself, I'd have to say good. On the one hand, it'll move 64-bit up into the standard relm (ie, everything has it and cheaper) and I'll be taking eveyone's "deprecated" athlon-xp's and pentium 4s :).
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.
Why does windows only run on 1 type of processor?
.. why not do it on Linux/BSD or an OS optimized for a particular chip..)
I think its simply because no one used other processors to run Windows (Back when NT3/NT4 supported MIPS, Alpha, PPC..). The Alpha seemed (at the time) to be the second most-used platform for NT as it did have performance advantage over IA32, but ultimately, not enough software was released native for Alpha to make it a truly usable platform.
Fast forward to today and I don't really see a strong argument for releasing on multiple architectures. x86-64 provides a cost effective and fast platform. While other processors/architectures might be more suitable for a particular niche, the lack of binary drivers and applications would (I would believe) keep people from utilizing it (If I have to write a custom app anyways
nah recompile is a bit too good... I would go with rehash...
Maybe "rewrite" would be more accurate? If Microsoft could get a 64-bit version of Windows just by recompiling, they would never have bothered with 32-bit Windows NT on Alpha.
``It's more a matter of prodding an industry ... "standard" computers still come with 256mb ram. ... the industry has been somewhat sluggish to adopt new tech under pressure to keep costs down. ... 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but many computers don't have them''
It sounds like you resent that the industry isn't progressing to faster and bigger hardware, and focusing on bringing cost down. I'm actually happy with this; I'm doing the same things I was doing years ago (and I'm sure the same is true for many others), so why should I need a bigger and faster system for them? If Pentium (classic) or ever 486 systems were available at a price that reflected the performance difference with current P4s and Athlon64s, I'd buy those in a heartbeat.
As it is, I can't get a real cost advantage by buying slower hardware, but I can get lower power usage. Since I believe lower energy usage is the only realistic way to reduce pollution in the short term, I've done so; my main machine is a VIA EPIA (underclocked to 266 MHz), and I have a 800 MHz iBook G4 (downclocked to 600 MHz). Both of these perform the tasks I use them for just fine. Both of them have 256 MB RAM, but I could make do with half if I took the trouble to get smaller modules (which I won't).
I have no need for a machine that will execute more idle cycles per second, nor do I have a need for software that requires such a machine.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.