Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista

SlinkySausage writes "Microsoft has used its annual hardware engineering conference to announce that Windows Vista and Server 2008 will be the last versions of Windows capable of booting on 32-bit CPUs such as Intel Pentium 4 and Core Duo. AMD, which introduced 64-bit CPUs early — much to the derision of Intel, which said there was no use for them at the time — must be delighted with Microsoft's decision. Owners of first-generation Intel Macs that used (32-bit only) Core Duo CPUs may not be so happy knowing that Vista will be the last Windows they will be able to run."

Comments

Don't fall into the trap

[ArcherB]

Windows Vista and Server 2008 will be the last versions of Windows capable of booting on 32-bit CPUs such as Intel Pentium 4 and Core Duo Before anyone falls into the trap I almost fell into, please note that the Core Duo is not the 64-bit capable Core2 Duo.

Re:Don't fall into the trap

[hackstraw]

Before anyone falls into the trap I almost fell into, please note that the Core Duo is not the 64-bit capable Core2 Duo.

Thanks for the heads up.

I find the "PC" world funny. I've used higher end equipment for quite some time, and I've found myself back into "commodity" land and its pretty confusing.

The summary says "AMD, which introduced 64-bit CPUs early". Huh?

DEC Alpha chips were introduced in 1992 and were 64-bit. SPARC went 64-bit in 1995. MIPS went 64-bit in 1991. PA-RISC in 1996.

AMD came out with 64bit/32bit hybrid chips in what? 2002-2003?

How is this early?

Also, Intel introduced the Itanium, a pure 64-bit chip in 2001. They had a strange i860 chip in the late 80s that was 64-bit.

I've been running 64-bit linux for about 10 years plus or minus 6 months.

To me, I find the x86_64 stuff to be a hack and late to the game. The only reason its remotely interesting is that its cheap, but calling this new or interesting is completely wrong.

Re:Don't fall into the trap

[Chas]

"DEC Alpha chips were introduced in 1992 and were 64-bit. SPARC went 64-bit in 1995. MIPS went 64-bit in 1991. PA-RISC in 1996."

And how many did you see, across the board, in consumer grade "Bob Everyman" systems?

"How is this early?"

Because Intel was basically telling people (rightly) that they really didn't need 64-bit on consumer workstations and laptops for another 10-15 years. AMD said "we've got it and we're releasing it". The adoption of the x64 stuff by Intel only reinforces this.

"Also, Intel introduced the Itanium, a pure 64-bit chip in 2001."

Which SUCKS for general computing use, and requires ridiculously complex "intelligent" compilers to eke decent performance out of your code.

"They had a strange i860 chip in the late 80s that was 64-bit."

Misconception. The data buses were 64-bits wide. And the FPU register depth was 64-bit (however, today's FPU have registers 80-bit deep by comparison).

"I've been running 64-bit linux for about 10 years plus or minus 6 months."

When did this become about dicksizing?

"To me, I find the x86_64 stuff to be a hack and late to the game."

As has been said about just about EVERY x86 development for most of the last 30 years. However, there's a reason why x86 is still the dominant platform extant. Underneath all the hacks and kludges and other cruft, the basic platform is stable, completely documented, and TIME TESTED. As such, the development community is orders of magnitude larger than any other. And, as a byproduct, the user community, who only cares about getting their hands on their personal favorite app, is several more orders of magnitude larger still compared to the user space of every other platform extant COMBINED.

Yes, inertia may NOT be the best reason for holding on to a platform. However, as long as the platform does what's required of it, what's the legitimate bitch?

Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac....

[Bert64]

Well, mac users often keep their machines for much longer than windows users... I still use a 400mhz G4 and it runs OSX Tiger perfectly well.

Tho, it does bring up an important question....
Why did Apple start with core duo processors? They could have made a clean break to 64bit x86 hardware, instead of going 32bit and having to migrate later?

Comment by Bill Laing clarified

[alienfluid]

So it seems like it's the Server SKU that is going to be 64-bit only, and not the client OS:

UPDATE | Microsoft's Alex Heaton has clarified the comment of Bill Laing, on which this story is based. "Bill Laing, a General Manager in the Microsoft Windows Server Division, has been quoted as saying that Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit operating system. Bill is a server guy and indeed Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit server operating system - all future operating systems for server hardware from Microsoft beyond Windows Server 2008 will be 64-bit," Heaton said.

"A few folks took Bill's comments on Windows Server and applied them to Windows Client deriving that Windows Vista would be the last 32-bit operating system. That is an incorrect extension. While Windows Vista includes both 32-bit and 64-bit and there is a growing community of drivers for 64-bit Windows Vista we have not decided when Windows Client will follow Windows Server and become 64-bit only."