Slashdot Log In
Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu May 17, 2007 10:17 AM
from the at-least-it-fixes-Y2K38 dept.
from the at-least-it-fixes-Y2K38 dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 527 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Funny)
As though any processor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As though any processor (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Who bought a 32-bit processor for Christmas?
2) Who bought something capable of running Vista in 2001 when XP launched?
The Linux community says THANK YOU to Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sympato.ch/)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 23 2003, @04:07PM)
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.
Re:Vista's replacement has a name!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
Apparently because on Slashdot, making some sort of backhanded Apple comment at the end of every story guarantees a lot of comments.
I thought it was a total non sequitur, too. Apple users will be upset? How about all the people who can't reboot into OS X and go on their merry way? I think they're going to be a bit more pissed.
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nine-times.org/)
Yeah, I know. What's the deal with the OP?
This leads me to a few questions:
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.
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ev4.org/)
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?
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pdgLUlhjY2
If that isn't a hockey stick chart, I don't know what is.
BTW, does anyone know how to get the labels to show up correctly?
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google spreadsheets: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pLElDZW8Ea
PNG (for those who can't view Google Spreadsheets): http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6696/memoryreq
As you can see, it's pretty much a straight line, exactly as you'd expect.
New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on what your definition of "near" is...
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.mypalmike.com/)
Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't fall into the trap (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday April 30 2007, @10:21PM)
Re:Don't fall into the trap (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.spamgourmet.com/)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
A few years ago, those 64-bit CPUs _WERE_ the workstation market.
Re:Don't fall into the trap (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.evilnet.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 30 2006, @12:30PM)
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?
This will make things interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.metatrontech.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 21, @01:39PM)
Is there a tangible reason to drop 32-Bit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is there a tangible reason to drop 32-Bit? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.lepertheory.net/)
Abridged, I assume?
I suppose that's possible... but (Score:5, Funny)
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!
YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://qstuff.blogspot.com/)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 14 2004, @10:31PM)
I fear there will be a loooooooong transition time - just as well they gave everyone an early warning.