He didn't compare the 64-bit versions because the 64-bit version of the Win7 Beta hasn't leaked.

64-bit driver support on Windows is excellent. I run the 64-bit version of Win7 on 5 machines, all with full WDDM 1.1 support and every device driver found via WU automatically. My Vaio laptop even has full 64-bit drivers for even the most obscure Sony propietary components straight from Sony, which makes sense as Win7 uses the same drivers as Vista and they ship those machine with 64-bit versions of Vista.

Most new retail machines come with the 64-bit version of Vista. Driver support for 64-bit Vista is fantastic. Leaps and bounds beyond 64-bit support on Linux. The Vista Logo program requires 64-bit driver support, you won't find ANY hardware that is "too new" - such a claim is utterly ridiculous.

There is no 64-bit version of Mac OS, and thus no 64-bit drivers. Not until Snow Leopard at least.

So why would you want to block support for them just because they aren't 64-bit?

Are you really not familiar with netbooks?

Lots of Vista users will be upgrading to 7, just like lots of Windows 95 users upgraded to 98 and Windows 2000 users upgraded to XP.

The 64-bit versions of Windows are completely, 100% 64-bit operating systems. That is quite unlike the fruity top competitor who only sells a 32-bit OS that can kinda sorta run some 64-bit code.

Most new machines I see at Best Buy are running the 64-bit version of Vista. I fully expect that most if not all Win7 machines ship the 64-bit version.

Kaspersky just launched a preview release of their Win7 version *today*. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the link would be more relevant once Microsoft had actually released the beta?

Even if you have a 64-bit capable CPU, unless you bought it VERY recently, you almost certainly have a 32-bit version of Windows Vista on it. Those people can very much upgrade to Windows 7, but they can't upgrade to the 64-bit version. They'd have to do a clean install. Your average user doesn't want to do clean install, and doesn't know or care about the distinction between a 32-bit and 64-bit OS.

Next time around it might make more sense, but having a 32-bit version of Windows 7 is completely reasonable.

Also, keep in mind that the 32-bit version has to be produced anyway, since the 64-bit version *includes* the 32-bit binaries to support 32-bit applications. So the potential savings in development cost aren't as significant as they might seem at first glance.

I have friends who run Win7 on their 32-bit Atom-based netbooks and who wouldn't give it up without a fight.

Also keep in mind that these devices often have small SSD drives and lesser amounts of RAM. The 64-bit version of Windows includes much of the 32-bit version in order to support 32-bit applications. This means a larger hard drive footprint, and at least a little more memory usage (since you're undoubtedly going to end up with both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of libraries like shell32.dll loaded into memory).

See "Atom" for instance.

It isn't useless. It isn't "subjective" since it's based on actual objective measurements. It conveys the indication that Windows 7 has *broad* performance improvements.

It has been suggested that exact numbers were not given due to the beta's EULA clause that prohibits benchmarking against the pre-release build.

1) Netbooks. The Atom processors in most netbooks are 32-bit only. Also consider any other embedded scenario where 64-bit CPUs are not available, practical, or where 64-bit addressing is not necessary.

2) Upgrades. Windows does not support upgrading from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS (you have to choose the "clean install" option). If you want to sell upgrade discs to the vast majority of current customers, you need to sell 32-bit copies.

I am a developer on the Windows team, I think I understand quite a bit.

Perhaps you should re-read the post to which you replied. A password prompt is useless if the OS doesn't check actions (like attempts to access a file) to compare the account the user authenticated with against the permissions or access control lists on the file or other securable object. Do you really think that having user accounts and passwords doesn't involve any additional work after you've logged in? Quite the contrary, nearly every action you perform results in access control checks, on any operating system you choose.

If you don't understand that then you don't understand how software works.

Admittedly I confused you with the person who posted the original DRM comment. You have my apologies for that. But still, you said:

"It seems to be both by "common-sense" and "real figuring" (like in the article), all the DRM stuff that was added in Vista does have some impact. Even on those who wouldn't be using DRM'ed files."

That seems to me like you're propogating the same disinformation. Even the phrase "all the DRM stuff that was added to Vista" is a loaded statement that misrepresents the facts. In truth, there wasn't that much DRM stuff added to Vista, just some improvements on support that was already in Windows XP.

Sorry, your post was a little confusing so I wasn't sure what you were trying to get across there =P

Why would support for DRM restrictions impact performance or stability? That's just ridiculous. That's like saying having a password on your computer will make it slower. Well, there's more code to handle password authentication, and yeah the OS needs to do the appropriate checks to make sure you're authenticated. But does it make the system less stable? Of course not. Does it slow it down in a perceivable way? Of course not.

More importantly, "support for DRM'd media" and "support for the restrictions of DRM'd media" are the same thing. If you want to play BluRay movies, you have to accept the limitations imposed by the BluRay standard. That's just the way it is, at least in the world of legally licensed software.

I have no complaints about it. Most of my machines never play any such material, and so no DRM-related code ever runs on them. My media center PC has a BluRay drive connected to my Samsung LCD via a DVI to HDMI converter, and I play BluRay movies with PowerDVD at 1080p and use an optical output connection to my receiver. I don't know what DRM or other content protection measures PowerDVD employs or makes use of, but I do know that I have never experienced any problems at all with that setup.