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.
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 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?
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.
"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?
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)
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!
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
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
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
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.