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

As though any processor

[Spamalope]

made today will be able to run the Microsoft replacement for Vista. Why worry?

Re:As though any processor

[iainl]

2017 might be comedy exaggeration. But

1) Who bought a 32-bit processor for Christmas?

2) Who bought something capable of running Vista in 2001 when XP launched?

Huh?

[bakes]

Microsoft themselves still don't support 64-bit yet. I installed the 64-bit version of SQL Server 2005 only to find it doesn't support 64-bit for SQL Mail and SSIS - you have to run the 32-bit versions of them under WoW64. Someone else has already mentioned drivers. If Microsoft can't or won't support their own software under 64 bit environments, they are going to have a heck of a time convincing developers to push everything over.

I fear there will be a loooooooong transition time - just as well they gave everyone an early warning.

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

[nine-times]

Yeah, I know. What's the deal with the OP?

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.

This leads me to a few questions:

• Of all the people using 32-bit processors, why single out Mac users? Mac users often don't even use Windows at all.
• ... which leads me to a second question: Is this supposed to be sarcastic?
• What makes you think Microsoft will stick to this?
• What makes you think we won't all have new computers before Microsoft releases their successor to Vista?

Microsoft is notorious for having high expectations and grand plans, taking too long to execute, and dropping most of their features, improvements, and changes before the end product is released.

The Linux community says THANK YOU to Microsoft.

[DrYak]

This decision by Microsoft to drop 32bit support *may* boost Linux (and other OS) adoption.

Currently I know some friends who uses old machines and a lot of machines in the university (specially in labs). All those are still based on P2/P3 or other CPUs of that era. 10 years old processors.

"A next Windows" has no chance of happening before 2013, considering their current release speed of 6 years between XP and Vista. Worse if we take into account that Microsoft has promised to build an entirely new capability-based microkernel OS. Which is very unlikely, given their tendency of scraping newer non-eyecandy idea out of Vista because of time constraints.

By the time Microsoft finally releases their next piece of shit, there will be a lot of 10 years old, 2003-era processors everywhere (Intel Pentium-IV, 32-bits only Intel Core, AMD Athlon XP, early 32bits AMD Semprons) :
This mean that when Windows-the-next (tm) comes out, either there will be a massive switch toward other OS (very likely in university labs) or the new OS will see an even slower reception than Windows Vista is currently experiencing (very likely on Joe 6-pack's older 32bits home machine).

The last similar switch of technology requirement was Windows 95 : the first consumer oriented widely diffused Microsoft OS that could only run on 32bits protected mode CPUs.
In 1995 (okay, 1996) when it came out, Intel 80386 where 10 years old and had finished displacing the 16bit only older 80286.
99% of home computer where equipped with 32bits Windows 95-"mostly"-capable CPU ranging from 386 to Pentium.
That's why it went went "somewhat more smoothly".
Throwing out the 32bit arch is TOO MUCH early. Microsoft should wait until it is completely phased out of the market, in most segment (if possible, including the small embed/ITX market of people making low-power boxes. Current VIA chips are 32bits only). The problem is, maintaining compatibility for more than 1 architecture has always been too much work for Microsoft (Alpha and MIPS got only a couple of NT releases. Itanium hasn't got a much high number of OSes), in contrary of the OpenSource community.

Re:The sun is likely to be a cold, dark lump of co

[noewun]

None of this touches the twin problems which makes Microsoft's release schedules so awful: the religion of backwards compatibility and a overly-managed, near-chaotic corporate culture which emphasizes endless meetings and paper trails over innovation. Both of these items stem from something Microsoft can't control, which is the necesity of leaning on Windows/Word as their two dominant profit engines. Essentially, Microsoft has worked their way into a position in which true innovation (of the kind Apple was forced into with the failures of Copland and Pink and the adoption of OS X) is nearly impossible, because anything which threatens to cut off a sizeable portion of their user base directly threatens the company's bottom line.

In other words, the problem isn't Windows per se, or 32- versus 64-bit, or any other technical issue. The problem is Microsoft needs Windows simultaneously to be the same old operating system you've been using for years and the latest, greatest thing, and it can't be both. For a technology point of view, the best thing would be to really remake Windows from the ground up as Apple was forced to do with OS X and just tell people that if they bought their machine before 2001 they're out of luck. But they can't, and won't, do this, so their release schedule will continue to be contrained by the need to do two opposing things at the same time.