Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista 527
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."
as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Funny)
As though any processor (Score:5, Insightful)
The sun is likely to be a cold, dark lump of coal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The sun is likely to be a cold, dark lump of co (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This will not be an issue for desktops as most new desktops were 64-bit starting in 2004, with the last 32-bit desktop Semprons and Northwood Celerons bowing out around the end of 2005.
The only mass-market 64bits desktop chip available in 2004 was the Athlon64... 64bits Prescott/Pentium D did not become widely available until early 2005. Pentium D 5x0 Prescotts that shipped in 2004 do not have EM64T but all other models (5x1, 5x2, 6xx, 8xx, 9xx) that started shipping in 2005 do.
Your first sentence becomes true about half-way through 2005 where even 32bits Celerons started being phased out and Northwood supplies completely dried up.
I remember building my current PC after a few weeks of po
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Vista's replacement has a name!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, if they want OS X to work on 32-bit CPU's for the next 5-10 years, it will. They'll support it. And given the fact that they're still selling 32-bit Core systems (the Mac Mini does not have the Core 2 yet), they'll support it for a long time to come. I'd gi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go get yourself a Mac with a Core 2 Duo processor and see for yourself.
It is not necessary for the kernel to be 64-bit to support 64-bit executables in user space. It is only necessary for the kernel to know how to manage an MMU that supports 64-bit addressing and for the kernel to maintain all unmapped user-space addresses as 64-bit values. Once mapped into the kernel, the kernel-space representation can safely be a 32-bit value without limiting anything other than the maximum aperture within a 64-bit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what I thought was crazy is that Apple customers aren't the only ones using the Core processors, why single them out? Is Apple even the largest customer of Intel 32-bit processors?
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
as the owner of a first gen PPC mac.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Vista "Premium ready": 1GB.
So assuming linear increases the successor would recommend 8 GB. Naturally the increase isn't linear though. To calculate that you'd have to fit an exponential to past OS releases, and I've got better things to do.
It's also interesting to note that XP required a graphics card with 1 MB of RAM. Vista PR (he he) recommends 128-512 MB. Assuming linear increases that's 16 GB of graphics memory for the successor!
Re:as the owner of a first gen intel mac.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Since I've been itching to try out the new Charts feature on Google Spreadsheets anyway, I threw together a spreadsheet of the Windows memory requirements," hardly sounds like a reasonable analysis. Especially after the parent poster explicitly stated that such growth is not linear. It was information, and information only. i.e. A spreadsheet of Windows Memory Requirements. Ex
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you've got a reliable source that gives different values for these features, please share and I'll update the sheet.
let's hope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New operating system (Score:5, Funny)
So this means (Score:2)
Mac Owners (not) Running Windows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, VMWare uses native virtualization in all of its products, meaning it still needs to be run on the same type of CPU. It runs the instructions directly on the CPU, so the switch to Intel wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they run Windows, they run it to access some Windows-only application, not to get a flashy, tasteless user-interface, so Macintosh users are much better off with Windows XP anyway.
I thought vista was the last one? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know that was taken back a while ago. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Although this news sounds horrible. At one point Bill G
Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially the upper half IS reserved for the OS (which is much more than 2^48, it's 2^63), but it will be a long while before it's a problem, because at the moment there's a big no-man's-land between the valid program and OS memory addresses.
Don't fall into the trap (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't fall into the trap (Score:5, Informative)
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:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, I'm not trying to make fun, that was an excellent post so stumbling across that small clause thrown in there made me Laugh Out Loud.
Sadly, there is a lot in x86 that isn't documented. Especially if you're looking for all that documentation in one place, but even without you're never go
Re:Don't fall into the trap (Score:4, Insightful)
A few years ago, those 64-bit CPUs _WERE_ the workstation market.
Itanium is a *successor* of Alpha (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly.
HP collaborated [wikipedia.org] with the design of the Itanium. Thus pulling out of the market before the Itanium arrived was a logical decision from the point of view that they were going to replace the Alpha with their newer baby jointly-developed with Intel.
MIPS continued for some time after the Itanium and was progressively dropped when its sales went to low, both from workstation and embed mar
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Windows timelines (Score:2)
This will make things interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
will hardware vendors stop releasing 32-bit chips?
Probably not but they certainly won't become the main product. The main product is selling chips to people running Windows and if it's not supported in 32-bit the demand for new chips that are 32-bit will drop.
Will companies upgrade hardware in orer to get the latest version of Windows?
It depends but probably. Once the EOL happens for XP/Vista they will be forced to upgrade in order to
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? That's not relevant. Hardware companies still produce 16-bit chips [intel.com] but that doesn't mean most people are still using 16-bit desktop computers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as AMD and Intel are concerned, 32-bit-only processors are nearly gone already.
Will companies upgrade hardware in orer to get the latest version of Windows?
Maybe, but it's more likely just to upgrade the system specs like they're having to do with Vista rather than to support 64-bit. The upgrade needed to run Vista probably entails purchasing a 64-bit processor, even if they don't use a 64-bit OS.
Will this help provide more incentive for a Linux desk
Re: (Score:2)
Can macromedia do the impossible, heh.. (Score:2, Funny)
Buh-Bye Flash, hello Starlight! (or whatever it's called)
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)
Abridged, I assume?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it'd only contain 32768 words...
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Time to burn for Intel Mac users. (Score:2)
If the XP to Vista roadmap is any indication, I figure they have at least five years before they have to worry about the next major Windows release not running on their machines.
YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You think the hardware vendors are waiting around? They are already dreaming of 128-bit CPU's.
In 7-8 years when/if Vista's successor is ready the hardware vendors will already have had 128-bit CPU's on the market for at least a year, and convinced everyone that they need one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I see what you're getting at (hardware vendors wanting to sell upgrades), but no, they aren't dreaming of 128-bit cpus. Because 64 bits is really going to be enough for a long time. 2^64 is huge.
Previous jumps made a lot more sense. 4 to 8 to 16 was automatic, as soon as transistor budgets was high enough it made sense to do it. 16 bits wasn't ever sufficient, either -- 64k isn't even a very long text file
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear there will be a loooooooong transition time - just as well they gave everyone an early warning.
Re: (Score:2)
I run several SQL 2005 instances, one of them a 2-node cluster of SQL 2005 SP1 64-bit on Windows 2003 R2 SP2 64-bit, and I don't have this problem. SSIS works just fine. I don't use SQL Mail, so I can't speak to it, but unless SQL Server set up and is running WoW64 without telling me (which, I admit, isn't impossible), SSIS works just dandy in 64-bit land.
What? (Score:2)
So...everybody on slashdot proclaims that Vista sucks so bad that it is the final nail in Microsoft's coffin...yet they are not happy that Windows will be discontinuing 32 bit support in 5 to 10 years???
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Not to mention that it's all too common for software/hardware manufacturers to make these grandiose kinds of statements only to retract it at a later date. I've never seen the axe fall on such a standard without at least a few false announcements of abandonment. For example: I was told 2-3 years ago that both ATI and nVidia were both go
About Damn Time (Score:2)
This also should allow Microsoft to cut back on the size of windows since they, at least in my m
Indeed... (Score:2)
But seriously, I think this is probably the least of any Mac users worries. Generally, Bootcamp is used for backwards rather than forwards compatibility. The forward compatibility is Mac OS. Windows is for legacy apps.
It really makes no difference (Score:4, Insightful)
That and as Microsoft seems to feel that your next PC will be a cell/mobile phone, I'm waiting for the advent of the 64-bit mobile phone processor. Imagine its 128-bit predecessor. You'll be able to address every bit in the known universe with the memory map on *that* one.
Or, perhaps 'legacy' hardware will get some much needed added life, by utilizing ultra-fast 32-bit processors that just do work far faster than their 64-bit equivalents-simply because code maturity will force opmitizations.
In many ways, this is a good idea for Microsoft! (Score:2)
They have to do it this way. Apple doesn't have this problem
Re:In many ways, this is a good idea for Microsoft (Score:2)
Yes, because (Score:2)
MS software engineering (Score:2)
Tainted (Score:2)
Call me crazy, but I didn't buy my Mac to run Windows. So I won't be "not so happy". Thanks for speculating though!
No (Score:2)
How long to roll out 46 bit only? (Score:2)
So what, we'll need to upgrade our machines in 6 years or so? That's well within the typical Mac lifecycle... though just barely. Unlike standard PCs Macs are typically used for ~5 years before being upgraded. The OS just keeps getting better and faster so the older machines actually work better than when they were introduced... Linux seems clos
Old versions forever! (Score:2)
Sure... (Score:2)
Is this really an issue? I mean, isn't XP Pro the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft made? Why would they run Vista at all? Why would they want to?
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
2002
What? Windows XP Pro is crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. Wasting system resources on a Fisher-price UI? No thanks! 2000 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
2000
Windows 2000? I think not -- it requires 64MB of RAM for god's sake; and recommends 128MB! Who has that much RAM? Bloated piece of crap. 98 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1996
Windows 98? I think not! It barely does more than Windows 95 did, but have you seen how much bigger the sysreqs are due to bloated crap like active desktop and IE4? No, 95 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1995
No, Windows 95 is crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. Can you believe it needs a 32-bit CPU? What applications need 32-bit, anyway? None! Bigger isn't always better, you know; and that's certainly true for 32bit/16bit. 3.11 is the last reasonably respectible OS Microsoft has made.
1992
Windows 3.11? Crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. What use is a GUI, anyway? I can do things faster at the command line. Give me MS-DOS 5 and-day.
1991
MS-DOS 5? Crap, bloated, and has ridiculous hardware requirements. COMMAND.COM is over 47kB, can you believe it? I long for the good old days of 2.0 and 3.0.
1983
MS-DOS 2/3? Bah. Who needs the bloat? Give me something lean and mean like CP/M any say.
1976
CP/M? A general purpose operating system? Who needs it? Everyone knows it's more efficient to have different machines to do different tasks. Do one thing and do it well, I say.
etc., etc.
BashDot (Score:2)
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.
Question: Circa 2013* or so when a replacement for Vista actually appears, exactly how many "first-generation" Intel Mac operators that actually use their by-then 7 year old systems to run Microsoft operating systems will actually care?
Answer: Both.
Please. I wouldn't be surprised or disturbed to learn the latest version of OS X isn't be supported on 32 bit Macs by the time Microsoft replaces Vista. If history is any guide there is at least one processor architecture change-over in store for Apple between
Step 1 (Score:2)
Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista? (Score:2)
Sure it is the last one (Score:2)
Oh no, Windows 98 will *really* be it.
Whoops, Windows 98SE will be it!
Windows ME will, we really mean it this time!
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't see why Microsoft went 32-bit on this version anyway...I'd say over %80 of the potential upgrade platforms and over %95 of all shipping PCs today support x86-64 mode. But when you look back, history paves the way:
Windows 386 = Windows 2.0 with 32-bit enhancements bolted-on. Equivilant of Windows XP 64
Windows 3 = crossover version with support for 16-bit and 32-bit processors. Equivilant of Vista.
Windows 95 = supports only 32-bit processors. Equivilant to the next revision of Windows.
Too bad Microsoft didn't have the balls to jump the gun and make Vista 64-bit only.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This provides excellent backward-compatibility for 32-bit apps, with all the benefits of a 64-bit OS and drivers. This allows you to unify development of applications and drivers to
MS 64bit == Non-Free Drivers (Score:3)
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64b
Implications of this are:
1. Chilling effect to new devices.
2. Sets the stage for tighter DRM handcuffs.
From Microsoft's perspective these aren't bad things as they directly benefit Microsoft shareholders though, so I guess it's a wash.
Except you are wrong (Score:3, Informative)
This doesn't stop free, open drivers, just requires the people releasing them to sign them. If the driver isn't MS signed, Vista pops up a little box saying "The dri
Comment by Bill Laing clarified (Score:5, Informative)
UPDATE | Microsoft's Alex Heaton has clarified the comment of Bill Laing, on which this story is based. "Bill Laing, a General Manager in the Microsoft Windows Server Division, has been quoted as saying that Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit operating system. Bill is a server guy and indeed Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit server operating system - all future operating systems for server hardware from Microsoft beyond Windows Server 2008 will be 64-bit," Heaton said.
"A few folks took Bill's comments on Windows Server and applied them to Windows Client deriving that Windows Vista would be the last 32-bit operating system. That is an incorrect extension. While Windows Vista includes both 32-bit and 64-bit and there is a growing community of drivers for 64-bit Windows Vista we have not decided when Windows Client will follow Windows Server and become 64-bit only."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)