Office 14 to ship in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors

Beta releases have become a great way to discover potentialy unannounced products by snooping around in the files that accompany the beta. Ed Bott did said snooping and is now claiming that Office 14 will ship in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.

Located within the Migwiz.xml file shows the code extensions that prove that a 64-bit version does exist.

This is great news for users that can take advantage of the 64-bit flavor and should come as welcomed news that Microsoft is expanding support for 64-bit. One day soon we will hopefully be able to drop 32-bit forever.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

BackWeb files patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft

Next Story

Updated: New Fallout 3 DLC now available, riddled with bugs

36 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

im getting tired of 32bit and 64bit..in a sense that i think dev's should start focusing ONLY on 64bit soon
and adobe sux for not even having 64bit flash
i bet theres 64bit silverlight and i hope silverlight becomes more popular its so much better

Since it's estimated that 60-70% of Windows 7 sales are expected to be 64bit, this makes sense, and may force adobe off it's duff to make a 64bit native flash plug-in for Windows.

jstillion said,
Since it's estimated that 60-70% of Windows 7 sales are expected to be 64bit, this makes sense, and may force adobe off it's duff to make a 64bit native flash plug-in for Windows.

haha - and I remember Microsoft announcing that Windows (2000??) was ONLY going to be 64 bit before launch.

the x64 in the XML is obviously left over code from the old Commodore 64 versions of Office

From my perspective we shouldn't even have 32bit versions of future office or windows products. ALL machines that will run these versions have 64 bit processors anyways. I wish Microsoft would take the bull by it's horns and try to force the adoption of 64bit a little bit more. Making 32 bit versions only holds us back.

Does anyone have a good reason to continue making 32bit versions?

Nightburn said,
ALL machines that will run these versions have 64 bit processors anyways.

That is an incredibly ignorant (and incorrect) statement to make.

Does anyone have a good reason to continue making 32bit versions?

Every netbook made right now has a 32-bit processor. There are also lots and lots of older machines still in use that have 32-bit processors as well.

So I was incorrect. I wasn't claiming to be 100% accurate. It was a generalization.

Okay so atom processors don't have 64 bit extensions yet. Way-to-go Intel, fail.

My original point was, older machines with 32 bit processors probably should not be running windows 7 or office 14 anyways. The majority of people with older hardware will most likely continue to run XP with Office 2003.

Nightburn said,
From my perspective we shouldn't even have 32bit versions of future office or windows products. ALL machines that will run these versions have 64 bit processors anyways. I wish Microsoft would take the bull by it's horns and try to force the adoption of 64bit a little bit more. Making 32 bit versions only holds us back.

Does anyone have a good reason to continue making 32bit versions?

A lot of times we are forced to install 32 operating systems because some manufactures still aren't making 64bit compatibile programs.
I recently at work had been building 64bit Vista for employees getting new laptops. Then we had to switch to IPSec compatible VPN, which Cisco has announced they have no intensions of making a 64bit VPN client for, not even in the distant future. So now I had go rebuild those new laptops to 32bit.

I've recently built a few servers out that had nice 64bit processors. Even though it was the latest version of Microsoft software (Great Plains 10), they have lots of incompatible software for 64bit. It was such a waste.

Nightburn said,
So I was incorrect. I wasn't claiming to be 100% accurate. It was a generalization.

Okay so atom processors don't have 64 bit extensions yet. Way-to-go Intel, fail.

My original point was, older machines with 32 bit processors probably should not be running windows 7 or office 14 anyways. The majority of people with older hardware will most likely continue to run XP with Office 2003.

Again, you are making overly broad generalizations. You really don't seem to understand that while 64-bit has a place, it is not necessary for day-to-day computing. The entire point of the Atom is for low-end, low cost systems for simple applications such as web browsing and office tasks such as word processing. How would being 64-bit make those things any better or faster? It certainly wouldn't lower the cost of development or the power requirements of the chip, which are two of the Atom's design goals. How is it a failure on Intel's part that they designed a chip that is perfectly suited to its design goals?

Also, there are many, many 32-bit systems out there running Vista for whom an upgrade to Windows 7 would be a good thing, especially for performance. There is no denying that 7's performance on lower end systems is much better than Vista's, even rivaling XP's performance.

roadwarrior said,

Again, you are making overly broad generalizations. You really don't seem to understand that while 64-bit has a place, it is not necessary for day-to-day computing. The entire point of the Atom is for low-end, low cost systems for simple applications such as web browsing and office tasks such as word processing. How would being 64-bit make those things any better or faster? It certainly wouldn't lower the cost of development or the power requirements of the chip, which are two of the Atom's design goals. How is it a failure on Intel's part that they designed a chip that is perfectly suited to its design goals?

Also, there are many, many 32-bit systems out there running Vista for whom an upgrade to Windows 7 would be a good thing, especially for performance. There is no denying that 7's performance on lower end systems is much better than Vista's, even rivaling XP's performance.


There is a 64-bit version of the Atom (specifically, the Atom 330).

And yes, there are plenty of 32-bit systems that can (in fact *should*) upgrade to Windows Vista (or failing that Windows 7) pronto, Tonto (basically any computer with a P4 Northwood-based CPU or better with 1 GB of RAM or more that has the hardware support should upgrade *now*, not later, unless software-blocked).

However, the question begs, why *not* run 64-bit in daily usage if you can without injuring productivity?

I dual-boot between Windows Vista Ultimate x64 and openSuSE 11.1 x64 on my home PC; the only 32-bit OSes I run are in VMs. And I have a Celeron DC E1200 with but a single gigabyte of RAM.

Not four gigabytes, or even two.

Contrariwise to what the doomsayers/naysayers would expect, there has been exactly *zero* decrease in performance running x64 vs. x32. In fact, depending on the application or game (that's right; gaming on x64 is not only quite possible, but can be done usually with no more fuss than doing so in x32), performance can actually increase vs. x32.

Unless you have driver or application issues (and the vast majority of folks with x64 hardware usually don't), I would say go x64 now, even if you have less than 4 GB of RAM; more likely than not, your applications will thank you!

stumper66 said,


A lot of times we are forced to install 32 operating systems because some manufactures still aren't making 64bit compatibile programs.
I recently at work had been building 64bit Vista for employees getting new laptops. Then we had to switch to IPSec compatible VPN, which Cisco has announced they have no intensions of making a 64bit VPN client for, not even in the distant future. So now I had go rebuild those new laptops to 32bit.

I've recently built a few servers out that had nice 64bit processors. Even though it was the latest version of Microsoft software (Great Plains 10), they have lots of incompatible software for 64bit. It was such a waste.


Cisco plans on releasing a 64bit version but it will be a new Version number not a build update. So you will have to goto a whole new version witch means money.

Terms of servers, I would install the Server in 64bit and run Hyper-V to host the 32bit OS for those old Apps to help in transistion or your going to have more downtime later.

the fact that an x64 is being developed doesnt mean that microsoft actually intends to ship it along with the x86 one. "microsoft working on 64-bit version of office" would have been a more appropriate title

@redfox

32bit windows reserve anything over 2GB of memory meaning that application cant use the other 2GB unless they have special flag

Office isn't just Word or Exel you know. And just because we're talking 64bit code you shouldn't automatically think it's just about using more RAM.

GP007 said,
Office isn't just Word or Exel you know. And just because we're talking 64bit code you shouldn't automatically think it's just about using more RAM.

Indeed - 64 bit processing would help an awful lot with more complex calculations in Excel, and queries in Access.

alpha_omega said,
It's "address space", not "physical memory".

What I know is that 32bit has can address of 4 GB of memory
2^32
but remember that should be total addressed memory
GPU memory + system memory + hardware address should alway be less or equal 4 GB

My point was that going 64bit isn't just about being able to use way more RAM. It's not that any of the office apps actually need more than 4GB or even 4GB itself.

64bit will let you bang out data faster, and more complex data at that. It's more of an overall performance gain period and less about being able to access more memory.

GP007 said,
My point was that going 64bit isn't just about being able to use way more RAM. It's not that any of the office apps actually need more than 4GB or even 4GB itself.

64bit will let you bang out data faster, and more complex data at that. It's more of an overall performance gain period and less about being able to access more memory.

Although the ability to access more memory is a big bonus IMHO!

kinetix63 said,
Indeed - 64 bit processing would help an awful lot with more complex calculations in Excel, and queries in Access.


If you need a 64-bit Access, Access shouldn't be your database of choice to begin with.

=NickJ= said,
haha very good point

I wish it were the case but it reminds me of the ISP I was at and they used access for their backend for their website so customers could check their account balance etc.

It truly is a disgusting database; people wonder why I prefer using 4D on the Mac over Access.

redfox2200 said,
What I know is that 32bit has can address of 4 GB of memory
2^32
but remember that should be total addressed memory
GPU memory + system memory + hardware address should alway be less or equal 4 GB

Then there is the split between kernel/user memory; normally along the lines of 2 gb of user space and 1gb of kernel

majortom1981 said,
All i need now is either a 64bit flash plugin

Yup, I can't believe that Adobe haven't been able to create a 64bit version yet. I'm really not a fan of Adobe at all.

Slugsie said,
Yup, I can't believe that Adobe haven't been able to create a 64bit version yet. I'm really not a fan of Adobe at all.
Didn't they drag their heals on releasing 64bit versions of their flagship applications as well?

Slugsie said,
Yup, I can't believe that Adobe haven't been able to create a 64bit version yet. I'm really not a fan of Adobe at all.

Ever since Adobe took over flash.. the program itself has gone to the dogs.. the amount of resources it takes just to run certain flash sites are absurd.. wonder how flash fairs on the Windows Mobile Platform..

dimithrak said,
Ever since Adobe took over flash.. the program itself has gone to the dogs..

I'm glad i'm not the only one that feels that way

dimithrak said,
Ever since Adobe took over flash.. the program itself has gone to the dogs.. the amount of resources it takes just to run certain flash sites are absurd.. wonder how flash fairs on the Windows Mobile Platform..

Well lets see... it's supported in WM 6.1.4 (w/ PIE6) which has an entirely different hardware requirement so I'm gonna say... it's taxing.