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!!
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.
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
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 think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to" ...finish sentences?
--
silas
hobbit
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.
Just because the OS requires a 64-bit processor, doesn't mean that 32-bit apps won't run in a virtual machine environment, much the way that 16-bit apps run in the wowexec VM on Microsoft's current 32-bit OSs.
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
That's not how I read it. Microsoft is going to require 64 bit processors for its new software. That's about equivalent to them requiring a 32-bit processor for Windows 95, and thereby excluding everyone on a 286. No reason why these systems shouldn't run legacy 32-bit apps - and maybe even 16-bit apps - but they're going to need a 64-bit processor.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to
Yes, they will.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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.
"Microsoft is breaking backward compatability? "
I'm assuming you are talking about 32bit? If you are then... Longhorn Server R2 doesn't come out until 2009, the 2007 version will come out with a 32bit counterpart Their 64 bit platform run 32 bit code without degrading performance.
The only thing that has to be re-written is 32-bit drivers. They are only breaking "driver" compatibility for legacy hardware. However hardware makers have started (last summer) to write the 64 bit drivers for their hardware, so I wouldn't worry to much about that.
Is that enough info to debunk?
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.
"...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.
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!
Windows XP 64bit has all the 16 bit subsystems removed, and can't run any 16bit software.
That's about equivalent to them requiring a 32-bit processor for Windows 95 and thereby excluding everyone on a 286.
Actually, 80286 support was dropped in Windows 3.1 (AKA Windows For Workgroups). WFW could only run 16 bit code [1], but it needed the virtual memory features of a 80386.
[1] Except if you installed "win32s", a subset of the Win32 API.
WWTTD?
Except that going 64-bit with less then 4GB of RAM makes little sense. Microsoft is binary-compatibility based company so they are trying to make sure that all users and OEMs will jump to new instruction set together. Originally, .NET should make CPU platform irrelevant, but somehow this didn't work really so all major Apps are still C++. Interesting thing that AMD64 instruction set, once underdog, will likely have no compatition in PC market for next couple of years. Even Apple standardized on it.
839*929
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
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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
Uh ya, right, GPU is an ATI design and CPU is a 3-core PowerPC by IBM.
Both were created in cooperation with Microsoft and are fully custom made (the Xenon CPU took 2 years), but they're still not "MS processors".
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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
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
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.
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
Upgrade! I have a nice pair of peril-sensitive sunglasses right here I'll sell for $42.
(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.
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.
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.