"Windows 7 Compatible" PCs Must Be 64-bit 440
Barence writes "Microsoft has started certifying PCs as 'compatible with Windows 7' — and is looking to avoid the mistakes that dogged the Vista-Capable scheme. Whereas Microsoft certified PCs that could only run Vista Home Basic last time around, this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker, including 64-bit versions of the OS. Microsoft also claims, 'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be another nail in the 32bit coffin.
Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux doesn't "support" customers at all. Debian and Ubuntu have community support lifecycles, and you can buy support from Red Hat or Novell if you want.. but GNU/Linux is just some code, not a service.
Plus Microsoft isn't abandoning their customers. Windows 2000 extended support lasts through 2010 and XP extended support lasts through 2014. They just want to try to force OEMs to get with it and stop offering 32-bit processors.
Re:Then why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Windows 7's main competitors - Windows XP and Vista - run on 32 bit. And not even offering your product to half your customers is a great way to ensure half your customers don't buy it.
Wrong problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
The sticker needs to tell these people the feature set they'll be capable of running. They couldn't care less about the processor architecture.
Re:Then why... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think anyone's concerned with losing 4 bytes to pointers.
My laptop has a 2.16 GHz Core Duo (Yonah). It would run Windows 7 perfectly fine, but it's 32-bit. Why would Microsoft turn down that money?
Re:Then why... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point of the article is that new computers must be 64-bit capable in order to be advertised as Win7-ready. This is quit different from saying that computers being upgraded need 64-bit capabilities. In fact, Microsoft would be in huge trouble if they made Win7 refuse to install on non-64-bit capable machines, because the "release candidate" runs on machines as old as my 1.5Ghz Athlon XP, and such a drastic change in specs from something called a release candidate might not go over well with the FTC or the EU.
Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
.
"MS is teh sux -- they're forcing me to buy a new computer"
"Well, Apple already forced you to buy a new computer"
"Linux still runs on PPC -- both Apple and MS are teh sux"
.
And so on and so forth.. the editors didn't stop to think for one second, and most posters won't stop to think for one second before starting all kinds of ridiculous flame wars. I swear, sometimes this site drives me nuts!
Re:Then why... (Score:5, Insightful)
sticker shock from having to spend $800 freaking dollars on an 'HDTV' because of the forced and sudden obsolesence of every TV made before it.
BS. Nobody had to buy a new TV. If you have cable or satellite your old one kept on working with no changes. Converter boxes were widely available for antenna users and were even subsidized by the government. If you spent $800 on a TV it was because you wanted to, not because you had to.
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
I imagine netbooks will keep 32 alive for a while, and MS considered this after a Linux scare in that field.
Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, you get a lot of drawbacks going to 64-bit OS/Apps. Programs and data take much more space, you use more memory bandwidth, so the same program recompiled for 64-bit will often run slower. The few 64-bit operations that are sped up may not outweigh the overall slowdown from the code that doesn't need more precision. If the 64-bit windows app is faster than the 32-bit one, is it really because it needed 64-bits, or because it got rid of the windows-specific limitation of available RAM?
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Right now I'm running Firefox with 12 tabs, listening to music, and editing a lengthy file in OpenOffice, while running KDE with full composing effects enabled... and I'm using about half of my 1GB. What use could I possibly have for 4GB?
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
And this different from how 32 bit glacially replaced 16 bit, how, exactly?
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called the Yamaha Steinberg Driver.
It works in windows, not linux. Cubase 5 and Kontakt 3 also.
Like I said, get off me. Quit trying to FOSS hump me. You guys are like vultures man. I use ubuntu daily on my laptop. Will you leave me alone now?
Re:No Linux support? (Score:2, Insightful)
The 80-20 principle [wikipedia.org] definitely needs to somehow be applied here.
No, I don't think it does. Man pages should be long enough to detail exactly how all the command options work. No longer and no shorter. I don't want some information arbitrarily left out just because a newbie doesn't know how to search for -l instead of scrolling through the whole document looking for it. Remember, the obscure options are the ones people need man pages for the most. You'll probably look up the -l flag for ls once when you first start using Linux and never again. The obscure stuff is what you're going to come back for time and time again.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you would even compare Visual Studio to Eclipse, FL Studio to the FOSS "equivilents", or 3DSMax to Blender (possibly the funniest one in the list) shows that you have never used any of those pieces of software, or if you have, 3/4 of the important features in them aren't even slightly important to you.
If guess if I need PSP or Photoshop I can just use Gimp right? Give me a break.