Windows XP-64 Delayed Into 2005

vincecate writes "Although Windows XP on AMD64 was demoed at ComDex in 2002, Microsoft is now delaying the release till the first half of 2005. Given Microsoft's history on this product, it could be even more than a year before it is really released. At least one person at Intel says they did not ask Microsoft to delay the release. In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta. Though Sun started well after Microsoft, they are progressing well on their Solaris port to AMD64 and could well release earlier."

Better late than buggy

[wheany]

It's better they release it a little late than with more bugs.

Funny timing...

[jarich]

This will give Intel's offering time to get established in the marketplace....

forgot one OS...

[bogusbrainbonus]

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.

Or you'll be running Mac OS X...

64 bit operating systems

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.

My, but does anyone else think the submitter live in a rather sheltered world?

I've been running a 64-bit operating system for the past five or six years, and it isn't one of those mentioned. It just happens to be OpenVMS [hp.com] running on Alpha.

Re:Quality Driven

[grunt107]

"The delays are quality driven,"

Where is the -1 Ludicrous button?

What they are really saying is that XP64 has so many problems it cannot be released. Or they are attempting to fix the gaping worm holes (why is that an Apple is less susceptible to worms than a Window?)

And as usual, Microsoft is late to the party

[hcdejong]

Yes, this looks like flamebait, but I'm actually surprised that it's taking MS this long, considering the resources they can throw at any given problem.

Re:Funny timing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 2003 Server SP1 was also delayed.
Windows Longhorn is delayed for the 525th time.

Maybe the tinfoil hat crowd forgots that Microsoft is being heavily bashed on the security front and maybe *gasp* maybe they need more coders to work on getting Windows XP SP2 out ASAP? And hell maybe fixing some one year+ serious flaws in IE?

The world doesn't always revolve around Chipzilla.

PS: I hate Microsoft and Intel.

The comment about Sun is not fair.

[harrkev]

The comment about Sun is not quite a fair comparison. Porting Solaris to x86-64 should be easier for Sun, since SOLARIS IS ALREADY 64 BITS!!!. The Sparc processors have been 64 bits for quite a while (I am typing this message on a Sun workstation right now).

Windows has been 32 bits for quite a while, so the jump to 64 is a bigger step than for Sun.

Re:The comment about Sun is not fair.

[demon]

Well, Microsoft has been working on an AMD64 port for longer than Sun has. While Solaris is already 64-bit clean, they have to get the entire OS up and running on AMD64 fairly quickly. Obviously they've hit a big milestone, so hopefully they'll be able to make their target. Of course, as the Register story mentions, they'll have a lot of negative momentum and impressions to counter even once the product is ready.

WOW64

[Kujah]

I think mainly their delaying for two reasons: WOW64 and driver support.

Having played with the beta of XP64 on my laptop, I can tell you that the driver support on XP64 absolutely sucks. There are hardly any drivers, and good luck finding any for older/abnormal hardware.

WOW64, if you're not familiar with the acronym, means windows on windows 64. It's basically their "emulator" (it's more of an interpreter) to run code not compiled for 64 bit. Instead of going the FreeBSD route and allowing for both 32 and 64 bit programs to run at the same time (props for freebsd), Microsoft decided to go with an emulator - which happens to suck horribly, and freeze alot.

Your best bet for the AMD64 extentions is FreeBSD, hands down.

Re:MS vs. Linux

[GbrDead]

I'm just not sure I'm interested in paying for the product that will come out just before Longhorn.

Because Longhorn might not stable (enough)?

Re:64 bit OS

[krunk7]

You'll have to wait till 10.4 before you have 64-bit computing on your G5. . . as will I.

Solaris has been 64-bits since 1995

[peter303]

They've long known all the hidden 32-bit bottlenecks in their OS and dealt with them. So I suspect, Sun's shipping date is mainly a matter of testing and verification.

Lack of drivers

[chiph]

My guess is that they're delaying the release in order to get the manufacturers to release more x86-64 drivers. Microsoft has always understood this to be important for their success (unlike OS/2).

Whenever I shop for new hardware, I look at the drivers first -- having good drivers is more important than the hardware itself.

Chip H.

Re:MS vs. Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, this scheme is so weak

Re:And as usual, Microsoft is late to the party

[lowe0]

From what I understand, they're throwing everything in sight at Service Pack 2 right now. Cleaning up Windows' security reputation (or lack thereof) is probably their number-one goal right now.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things

[MtViewGuy]

Microsoft has to hunt down every pointer in their windows code, which is vast. Even with Microsoft's resources it's going to take them a while before they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.

I think Microsoft will delay the release of the x86-64 version of Windows XP so 1) they can get true 64-bit driver support and 2) they can recode all the programs that come with WinXP to true 64-bit versions (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and so on). It also gives more time for third-party software vendors to complete development of true 64-bit versions of their software, too.

Re:forgot one OS...

[rsmith-mac]

It does have a 64bit math library however, which exposes the most important functions of the 64bitness of the G5. Full 64bit isn't as important on the G5, since unlike x86-64, there's not an inheriant speed benefit due to more registers or anything like that.

Re:What a load of crap

[mcbevin]

You call your parent a troll, yet totally confirm what he says - that 64-bit Linux is still basically beta, and that if Microsoft is also at the same stage as Linux in this regard it is fully justified in delaying the release of 64-bit XP, as it would obviously not be a 'good thing' to release beta-stage software as as a final product.

Misleading Title

[cynic783]

64-bit Windows has been available for Itanium 64-bit for quite some time. The fact that it is not available for AMD's 32/64-bit hybrid is another story.

And lost in this discussion is whether the x86 architecture is actually good for consumers in the long run? It's got tons of exceptions, has an asymmetric instruction set, and is really outdated.

It's time to break the compatibility chain to allow forward progress. Kind of like depending on BIOS, ISA architecture, etc.

I'm so tired of M$ portrayed on Slashdot as a comic-book villain, often without substantial discussion of the issues.