Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Microsoft proclaims end of the road for 32-bit processors
Microsoft has set its sights on 64-bits and beyond. At the annual Windows Hardware and Engineering conference, Microsoft announced the upcoming Windows Server 2008 release 2 will be the last operating system the company designs for 32-bit processors.That newish computer you've got that's running a Core Duo or Pentium 4 chip? Vista's the newest Windows Operating system you'll ever be able to install on it.
Of course, you can expect a new version of Ubuntu Linux to come out every six months, so if you decide you need some new features three or four years from now, there's a pretty good chance you'll be able to install an alternate operating system.
Comments
8
Subscribe to commentsPeterMay 17th 2007 5:27PM
The "newish" Core Duo and Pentuim 4 chips have all supported 64 bit.
This will be a non issue by the time it happens. Everyone was concerned when MS said Exchange 2007 would be 64 bit only, but by the time it was released 64 bit servers were pretty standard. The same will be true by 2009-2010 when this happens.
What MS really needs to do is switch to 64 bit and abandon backwards compatibility. They should include a VM of 32 bit Vista with the new OS and let people use that if they need to run apps that won't run on the new OS. That way they can move forward with new ideas and technologies that would break legacy apps.
David RMay 17th 2007 7:20PM
Actually, they only announced that it will be the last version of Windows SERVER that will support 32-bit -- the client division hasn't decided yet when they will make the full move to only 64-bit.
PC DoctorMay 17th 2007 7:20PM
This only relates to Windows server and not Desktop.
http://www.pcdoctor-guide.com/wordpress/?p=4265
My guess is that given the lukewarm reception that Vista is getting, Microsoft can't afford to alienate users.
Stephen GMay 17th 2007 9:45PM
> "Vista's the newest Windows Operating system
> you'll ever be able to install on it."
Why wouldn't I be able to install the 32 bit Windows Server 2008 on a P4 or Core Duo? Or did you mean to write "Vista's the newest Windows Client you'll ever be able to install on it."
epobirsMay 17th 2007 9:45PM
Only the later P-4s and Core 2 are 64-bit enabled. Core was still transitioning from the Pentium M that was intended solely for mobile platforms and thus in less need of 64-bit capability. Those Core Solo and Core Duos chips are still sold for use in sub-notebooks.
Actually, those with longer memories will recall that they state several months ago that the next major rev of desktop Windows would be 64-bit only. This won't be until after two major Service Packs for Vista and possibly a Vista Second Edition while Fiji is brewing. By the time this all happpens those machines not capable of 64-bit functionality are going to be terribly dated. Complaining about this is like being upset that vista doesn't perform well on a machine originally shipped with Windows 2000.
Rest asured, by the time Microsoft goes 64-bit only on both client and servers, the market will be more than ready. Quad and eight core systems with 4-8 GB of RAM will be well under $1,000 and the advantages of 64-bit finally within effective economic reach of consumers.
sleeproMay 18th 2007 8:43AM
Actually, this *will* apply to the desktop OS too. It's a no-brainer. Vista runs best for the average user with 2GB of RAM. Gamers need 4GB. Since a 32-bit OS cannot address more than 4GB of RAM, the next desktop Windows OS will have to be 64-bit. It's inevitable.
Embedded and special-purpose OSes will be able to "get by" with less RAM, so the 32-bit desktop will be moving to "Legacy" status soon - just like DOS/Win9x did.
LordDaManMay 18th 2007 1:02PM
32bit editions of server 2003 are able to access more then 4 gigs of ram for quite some time.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx
I forget what it's called, but they use a little trick to use more then he 4 gig max. The only drawback to this is each program can use 4 gigs of ram max, but that's more then enough for desktop users
sleeproMay 19th 2007 9:12PM
I stand corrected. Still, I'd rather not run an OS that uses any more tricks than necessary. Windows is "tricky" enough as it is. Gamers would reject the extra overhead and services needed for such manipulation out of hand in most cases. Better to run in native mode or with a virtual machine, as Peter suggested above.
He has an excellent point about the need to abandon the current kernel altogether and move on. MS has made too many compromises over the years in order to maintain legacy support. If we are to get real security, Windows needs a complete overhaul.