Slashdot Mirror
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."
....I assure you, I'll be alright.
Does this mean that MS are going to inflict another operating system on us in the near future?
made today will be able to run the Microsoft replacement for Vista. Why worry?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Linux, *BSP, etc, etc, are happy to support 32-Bit/64-Bit at the same time. I tried out the 64-Bit version of Windows Vista in VMWare (which can run 64-Bit Vista on top of 32-Bit Vista) and the only "benefit" I got was that my old 16-Bit apps stopped running. (Got several great 16-Bit games, and a 16-Bit dictionary.) What can the newfangled 64-Bit future Windows do that won't be feasible with a 32-Bit version lurking around?
As a programmer I've been waiting for this. I was actually disappointed that Vista would support 32-bit CPUs, but I guess there was no way around that, given how common 32-bit x86s still are. Having one architecture to support will make things much easier, as well as get people to actually update their legacy code. Now if MS could get them to actually fix all the problems due to generally crappy code (like requiring admin)...
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
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.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
when you consider that it took many more years for Vista than was planned; the next Windows release ought to come about retirement age for most of us.
That and as Microsoft seems to feel that your next PC will be a cell/mobile phone, I'm waiting for the advent of the 64-bit mobile phone processor. Imagine its 128-bit predecessor. You'll be able to address every bit in the known universe with the memory map on *that* one.
Or, perhaps 'legacy' hardware will get some much needed added life, by utilizing ultra-fast 32-bit processors that just do work far faster than their 64-bit equivalents-simply because code maturity will force opmitizations.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The 4GB memory barrier is fast-aproaching for high-end users, and dealing with it is a MESS. Most motherboards don't support PAE (either due to lack of re-mappable PCI address space, or even lack of 36-bit address lines!), so we have a hard-limit of 2-3GB in the most popular version of Vista (32-bit). This is going to be a rough few years for game developers.
I really don't see why Microsoft went 32-bit on this version anyway...I'd say over %80 of the potential upgrade platforms and over %95 of all shipping PCs today support x86-64 mode. But when you look back, history paves the way:
Windows 386 = Windows 2.0 with 32-bit enhancements bolted-on. Equivilant of Windows XP 64
Windows 3 = crossover version with support for 16-bit and 32-bit processors. Equivilant of Vista.
Windows 95 = supports only 32-bit processors. Equivilant to the next revision of Windows.
Too bad Microsoft didn't have the balls to jump the gun and make Vista 64-bit only.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
But running an emulator just for a quick game of Missile Command, Asteroids, Centipede, Battlezone, tempest, Tetris, etc, etc, is annoying.
The other day I put Win 3.11 up against Windows Vista at Chess. Just to clarify I played Chess Titans up against Chess.exe from the Microsoft Entertainment pack, at expert level.
With Vista being the newcomer Titan's got to play first. After about 30 seconds of thinking, Vista made it's _first_ move, in which chess.exe responded to immediately. From there a furious battle across the board started, with chess.exe taking more and more time to think along the way.
After about a half an hour of playtime the game ended with Windows 3.11 crashing, In some sort of ironic twist, one move from checkmating.. Vista.
Heh.
Chess.exe might have had an advantage in that it is thinking on the opponents turn, but I'm still surprised Chess Titans was beat out by a fifteen year old program made for a computer a thousand times slower. Go Microsoft!
I heard Vista's successor was named Microsoft Windows Forever. It was supposed to be out last month, but they decided to rewrite it to use a new engine. Shouldn't be long now ...
Yes.
2002
What? Windows XP Pro is crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. Wasting system resources on a Fisher-price UI? No thanks! 2000 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
2000
Windows 2000? I think not -- it requires 64MB of RAM for god's sake; and recommends 128MB! Who has that much RAM? Bloated piece of crap. 98 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1996
Windows 98? I think not! It barely does more than Windows 95 did, but have you seen how much bigger the sysreqs are due to bloated crap like active desktop and IE4? No, 95 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1995
No, Windows 95 is crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. Can you believe it needs a 32-bit CPU? What applications need 32-bit, anyway? None! Bigger isn't always better, you know; and that's certainly true for 32bit/16bit. 3.11 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1992
Windows 3.11? Crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. What use is a GUI, anyway? I can do things faster at the command line. Give me MS-DOS 5 and-day.
1991
MS-DOS 5? Crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. COMMAND.COM is over 47kB, can you believe it? I long for the good old days of 2.0 and 3.0.
1983
MS-DOS 2/3? Bah. Who needs the bloat? Give me something lean and mean like CP/M any say.
1976
CP/M? A general purpose operating system? Who needs it? Everyone knows it's more efficient to have different machines to do different tasks. Do one thing and do it well, I say.
etc., etc.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
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."