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."
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.
It's more a matter of prodding an industry where "standard" computers still come with 256mb ram. Dell's current high end machines come with 512, and some manufacturers can and will sell you a computer with 128mb of ram. (I'm not Dell bashing - they're the only company I'll use if I'm not building it myself. Just saying.)
Anyhow. What I'm getting at is the industry has been somewhat sluggish to adopt new tech under pressure to keep costs down. The 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but many computers don't have them, and the only reason why is that it's not cost-effective for the industry giants to switch over. As for performance...well, you won't see much difference with a 64-bit processor, but that's not because they aren't better - that's because people haven't been writing new code for them due to slow adoption rates. Vicious circle and all that.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
"...yield even more of their marketshare to Linux."? Maybe. I don't know what you were thinking, but thats what I would like to throw out there.
In my IT department the thinking might go something like this:
Windows requires us to replace that moderately priced server we bought last year. Well, if are going to have to replace it, lets try running Linux on it and see if we can provide our services that way.
However, our guys tend to be more open minded than most corporate IT folks.
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.
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
Heh, you're seeing them in full-panic-attack mode. TCPA, DRM, new Office file formats, and now this is just exemplifying how MSFT knows they are losing ground. They are giving a huge last shot at lock-in with the DRM, file formats and getting people to buy a new server with Windows licenses before Linux gets to be way too good of a choice to simply ignore.
My prediction is that if TCPA/DRM/new Office 12 file formats fail to have market penetration, MSFT will take a HUGE hit in the next five years and lose their majority in ten.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
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
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
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.