Neowin.net

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen; or at least not with Windows 7 anyway.

Microsoft likes to support just about every known hardware configuration possible. Taking such a drastic move as to phase out the 32-bit version won't happen for a while.

Why?
What difference does it make to you if there's a 32bit and a 64bit version available? You're not going to see any major difference either way, you just use what's more suitable for you.

Of course that's a myth, the first and foremost major "difference" would be the 4gb limit (it's actually less than 4gb).

No, what I said was that HE wont see a difference if there's a 32bit AND 64bit version of Windows 7 available. If he wants more than 4Gb of RAM, he can use the 64bit version, but what he appears to be saying is that if Microsoft doesn't make it 64bit only, it's a problem....somehow....

The only problem it poses is for manufacturer support. Remember that they have to create a version of their drivers for both 32 and 64 bit. In fact, I believe the lack of drivers on XP Professional alone was one of the biggest problems with the OS, despite it being stable and secure.

Exactly. A lot of things are compromised because windows HAS to provide "legacy support"... moving on to 64-bit is the perfect opportunity for them to make windows the modern OS it should be. Instead of having to support old-ass tab-based control panel dialogs!

Not an accurate statement... Though Best Buy is carrying computers, namely a few HPs, Gateways, and one Toshiba that have 4GB of RAM and Vista x64. They have been for a couple weeks now, didn't know it was news...

I guess I meant to say is that all the computers on the floor as demos, were running 64bit vista..all of them, laptops and desktops. My IT manager and I were there to pick up some cables and noticed it. We did look at all of them to confirm this. We had a little time ;-)

Dell is pathetic, just another company that treats their customers with contempt.

lol, Dell is the worst PC manufacture there is. Who really cares if they haven't made the move?

Dell has had the X64 Option since January. Dell just doesn't trumpet it. (In fact, the very reason BB *does* trumpet it, and they do sell Dell, is that more and more of their in-stock systems come with 3 or more GB of RAM, including two sub-$1,000US Dells. You may not see X64-based Dells at either Circuit City or Staples, however, as they tend to be less lavishly equipped RAM-wise than the Dells carried by BB.)

However, there is an argument *against* X64 for the home user, but it for once isn't because of productivity applications (most of which are either X64-ready themselves or work just fine in an X64 OS) or drivers. There are still several A-list game titles or expansion packs for existing titles that haven't made the jump (example: C&C3 is X64-ready, but Kane's Wrath is not).

No it's a good thing, we need to force people to start using 64 bit or we'll be stuck in 32bit hell for too damn long, as a matter of fact Vista should have been a 64bit only OS, and most of the perceived problems with Vista wouldn't be there.

i hope your joking there, 64-bit would create MORE problem

You say things without backing them up.

The main reason why you shouldn't use 64 bit over 32 bit OSs at this very moment is due to lack of support for it. Drivers and applications are still getting there for all OSs - Linux 64 bit still has some quirks. If a majority of software developers were to make use of 64 bit processing, there'd be absolutely no reason to use 32 bit anymore. It's outdated technology and seeing as we are hitting the limit for its potential already it is definitely time to move on.

The same is happening for various other things in technology, such as the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 - Vista started this for the Windows side (with extra legacy support of course) and I believe SP3 for XP also supports IPv6. This change is being made for a variety of issues, one of which is the fact that the world is getting closer to the limit of maximum allowed IP addresses, especially when factoring in mobile devices and huge computer labs at universities and workplaces.

Which goes back to z0phi3l's (and everyone else's) feeling - forcing 64 bit on everyone would probably be in EVERYONE's best interest. Software and hardware manufacturers and consumers would be able to focus entirely on 64 bit and ignore legacy support. We'd be able to move on and progress with technology and even begin developing the basis of 128 bit CPU registers and processing power for the future (I bet 128 bit will be sought after within the next 15 to 20 years, given the current trend of technology). Someone has to make the move, and seeing as Windows is still the most widely used OS, it's only best if Microsoft makes this move.

Many businesses are still operating on Windows 2000 because the benefit-cost ratio is too low to bother upgrading to anything else. But, they are also complaining about performance. Let's give them a reason to upgrade as well as quell their complaints.

Who gives a **** about 5% of the market share? This is a news article about an OS that actually has market share.

Mac is also a closed platform, only Apple develops all the hardware and "driver" support, granted there are 3rd party peripherals and devices for Mac. This is somewhat different from the PC market in that manufacturers have to write drivers for all their devices to ensure comptability for the OS.

From what I read Mac software isn't true 64-bit anyway, which is why Adobe won't make a 64-bit versino of their software for mac

config files would be so much better and would also remove the issue of progams being moved...

The other thing that really needs to be done is allowing logical volumes which allows drive spanning...

so

Windows:
apps:
users:

Could then span multi drives and partitions.

Problem would be that all sorts of things in Windows, from file extension behavior to your homepage and your right-click menus is stored in the Registry... Changing that ALL would require an almost complete redo of Windows AND applications...

compatibility issues aside, they do need to get rid of it soon

The registry is not a bad thing. The reason it has so many problems is because applications are poorly coded and don't remove registry enteries properly.

Removing it would require a complete rewrite of windows, and not exactly feasible.

Agreed. And it's not just the lack of proper uninstall, it's also an over-use of the registry by certain application. Another example of developers taking the "mine is the most important application" attitude.

Also, I don't necessarily agree that the registry should be trashed, but I do believe that it needs an overhaul with more efficient structures and indexing.

Aren't they selling 64-bit capable computers already? I thought all the core 2 duo and the current amd lineup were 64-bit capable.

acer, toshiba, hp, dell, gateway, none of these companies "make" computers. they ALL contract out to foreign semiconductor manufacturers to create the components they dont buy from other established companies (graphics from nvidia/ati, hdd's from WD/seagate). the only difference is the case, who puts it together, who you talk to for support, the additional crapware, and maybe the occasional extra software suite. Lenova has a fairly large software suite, dell has a faily small software suite.

once you get into the enterprise market, with servers and such, THATS where these companies put their R&D because THATS where the money is made. you think dell makes squat off a $400 desktop/printer/monitor combo? no. they dont make squat off of 5,000 $400 combos. they make it all in the enterprise market.

nice stuff

Satchel Paige said, "Don't look back; someone may be gaining on you." Best Buy has four quad-core desktops (one with 4 GB of RAM) for under $1000US today. (The other three have 3 GB.) Two Dells (one Inspirion and one XPS), one Gateway, and one HP. Dual-core has reached the Celeron price point (specifically, the Celeron E1200).

Let's face facts; it's *not* the price of quad-core CPUs (not even from Intel) that is keeping demand for them low. (Quad-core CPUs are at prices lower than Northwood-C was in its prime.) 64-bit-capable *Celerons* have been available for over a year! (I'm specifically referring to the Cedar Mill-based Celeron-D; the earlier Prescott-based Celeron is also X64-ready, and that CPU is two years old.) The processors are ready, the drivers are ready; heck, even most of the games and applications are ready. Given a solid system core with a 400-watt PSU, ATX case, and DVD-drive, it can be upgraded to a quad-core (and X64-ready) system for $600 entry-level, or $750 for DX10 midrange (and that even includes Vista Ultimate X64). Even Microsoft doesn't charge an X64 *tax* (X86 and X64 Vista versions are priced identically, and non-OEM/non-upgrade Vista Ultimate includes both versions in the same case). The holdup is *us*; the users.

There is a Celeron-D-based system at my right elbow (the Celeron and AMD Turion are in the same CPU class) that is likely running Vista Home Basic only due to its integrated graphics and low RAM loadout. (Vista Home Basic and Vista Starter Edition are the only Vista flavors that lack an X64 version.)

I switched to 64-bit Vista in November, so far it's been rock solid, super fast, and runs everything great, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

The only remaining incompatibility issues are with games and user minds. 64-bit made it to Celeron two years ago; Intel hasn't manufactured a non-X64-ready Celeron in over a year. (In fact, the single-core Celeron is Going Away; replaced by the Celeron E1200 and its brethren and sethren.) Other than certain niche applications, I know of exactly zero major productivity applications or suite components (or, in fact, of any of the top twenty-five productivity applications or suite components) that are not X64-ready. In fact, of all the PC games released in the past twelve months (including expansion packs and add-ons), only Kane's Wrath (the add-on for the X64-ready C&C3: Tiberium Wars) isn't X64-ready.

The real issues are three-fold.

Older games.

Older applications and drivers.

Older users.

The only game related issue that I have run into on 64 bit (and I buy and play EVERYTHING) is punkbuster. If they'd get the 64 bit version going, I wouldn't need 32 bit for anything ever again.

I only build XP machines for clients. 32 or 64 bit. I don't want to deal with Vista's problems in a business environment, and neither do they. Maybe it's ok for some home users, but I wouldn't want to take the chance of them cursing me for putting Vista on their PCs either, unless they specifically request it.

I only build what the client wants.