One of the most important details about the upcoming Office 2010 release is that it will come in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, helping pave the path towards an x64 computing future. However, people have been wondering if these versions will come separately, or if Microsoft will choose to include them in the same package. Ars Technica have unearthed some valuable details which hint that the latter could indeed be the case; Microsoft will most likely include both versions on the same DVD.Ars Technica posted an error message that read the following: "If you want to install 64-bit Office 2010, you must uninstall all 32-bit Office products fist, and then run setup.exe in the x64 folder. If you want to install 32-bit Office 2010, close this setup. Then navigate to the x86 folder at the root of your CD/DVD and run setup.exe." As you can hopefully deduct from this, it is implied that both versions will be on the same DVD, and that itself implies that you should be able to use one serial number for each of the different versions.
This is good news, although it is speculated that this message was just included for development reasons, and that there is still a strong possibility that both editions will stay separate. We'll update this as soon as Microsoft makes an official announcement, so stay vigilant. We've included a screenshot of the error message below, again, courtesy of our friends over at Ars Technica.
And it's 32-bit, not 23-bit.
I agree. The big one will be Windows itself dropping 32-bit versions more than anything else. Sure it'll still run 32 bit code but by only having the 64bit bersion out there developers will begin to have little reason not to move their new applications to a 64bit code base.
So why not reverse what they did for Vista, provide 64-bit media and supply 32-bit media on request.
I wish they had been from day one for this very reason, especially given they took off so fast. I can appreciate them wanting to keep the chips simple but it was a step backwards imho.
I agree that 32 bit should have been dropped with Windows 7 or even with Vista.
That would have assured that nobody with a crappy PC tried to install Vista and then go all "Vista is sooooo slow"
Siince that can't be done with Windows, due to the same size reason, they have two disks.
Good point.
Perhaps dual layer discs won't accommodate the holographic layer they embed into their discs? That would probably make the disc too thick.
i personally think they should do it with windows too but i doubt.
i cant wait for the time when MS will make a 64 bit only OS, most pcs support it by now bar netbooks
The Licensing between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista is the same. To add speculation as to why they have separate disks for Vista, I suggest that it could be because single-layer disks are cheaper, the build process to master the versions separately is easier, or maybe to keep track of how many users are on 32-bit vs. 64-bit.
It's probably cost and/or simplicity. I doubt THAT many people ever migrate from the 32 -> 64 bit versions of the same OS and for mum and pop it might make sense to just give them the one on a single disc.
Would be good to have them ship both on a single disc but, at both a retail and OEM level.
Actually, the 64-bit road has been paved...by Windows Vista. Beginning with Vista (all versions from Home Premium up), 64-bit became a real option (largely due to vastly improved driver support). Windows 7 has improved on that even further, to the point where the ONLY real obstacles to 64-bit daily computing are threefold:
1. Applications (including games). The vast majority of games and productivity applications are still 32-bit; not because there's no real *advantage* to going 64-bit, but because there's no real disadvantage to NOT going 64-bit. (The vast majority of developers are refusing to take a two-track approach; they are thinking that they will only go 64-bit at the expense of 32-bit. Until greater than half the hardware in use is 64-bit ready, the majority of these developers won't move.)
2. Recycled old hardware. For many reasons (yes, economic reasons are the biggest part of it, but it's still just one of them), 32-bit hardware survives (if not thrives) in the secondary-use market. For the past three Microsoft operating-system upgrade cycles have had to take the secondary-use market into consideration. (Think real hard about *why* Windows XP even got a Service Pack 3 in the first place.) The secondary-use market is actually larger than the primary-use market was a mere ten years ago....and that's just in the United States! Throw in exports to developing nations and the secondary-use market has begun to cannibalize the primary-use market more and more each year.
3. User cowardice. Speed and ability to use large amounts of system memory are both well and good reasons to make the move to 64-bit operating systems and applications *as a user*; however, as a user that made the move himself, there's an even bigger reason that, for some reason, is not getting much play (and it's not just in Vista 64-bit, XP64, or even 7 RC 64-bit, but has shown itself in every 64-bit operating system I have run compared to the 32-bit counterpart, if there is one); it's called STABILITY. 64-bit operating systems, by and large, can handle loads that would bring 32-bit operating systems to their knees, if not to a screaming halt; and that's heads-up, and equipped with the same amount of system memory. Start replacing the 32-bit applications with 64-bit applications, and that stability metric only gets better. Speed is fine; however, if you're unable to control that speed and are crashing constantly, wouldn't increased stability, even at the expense of some of that speed, be more useful? (Consider WinRAR, which now has a 64-bit Windows executable; or, if you want a similar case history with a bit more data, consider WinZip, which developed a 32-bit binary originally for Windows NT, and quickly became THE compression utility for Windows 95 as well. Note that WinZip didn't change ANYTHING from the purely Win32 executable designed for Windows NT; it ran on Windows 95's betas, and on the RTM of Windows 95 itself, without changes.) However, users have to be willing to move to 64-bit operating systems AND 64-bit applications when they exist. I RUN WinRAR 64-bit today (because of the decreased memory footprint compared to the 32-bit version); how many of the rest of you with 64-bit versions of Windows do so?
Thanks; that insight on 64-bit was gained by being a guinea pig and actually running 64-bit operating systems *by choice* (and running 64-bit applications when/where possible).
One thing I have found in running 64-bit at the low end of the RAM scale - compared heads-up to the 32-bit flavor of the same operating system (and with the same application mi
I just hate seeing all those "*32" marks in my Task Manager. I would love for all new program releases to be compiled as 64-bit applications.
But really, 32-bit applications will be around for many years to come. Only now, with 64-bit Windows, are we finally banishing 16-bit applications.
They also did it with Exchange 2007 (32 bit not for production use).
Stupid question probably....
Stupid question probably....
Yes
until Microsoft stops producing 32bit versions of their operating systems and software devs producing software that will take advantage of the 64bit platform will the "average user" see the benfiites of having a 64bit operating system. but that proberly wont happen for another 2 versions of windows.
And only if you favorite library and component is compiled and running for 64bits.
Anyways, developers are more busy trying to keep their legacy program running on Vista (and now on 7) rather to care about the petty 64bits market.
I do agree that there still really is not a lot of reason for most individuals to move up to the x64 version. You really need 4gigs to show any real benefit outside of a few select processor enhancements.
The good news, however, is you can probably pick up a quad core computer with eight gigs of memory for $599.
until Microsoft stops producing 32bit versions of their operating systems and software devs producing software that will take advantage of the 64bit platform will the "average user" see the benfiites of having a 64bit operating system. but that proberly wont happen for another 2 versions of windows.
Again, as someone that is far from rich, and runs 64-bit at the low-end of the RAM/hardware scale, I call shenanigans on that.
I made the move with Vista 64-bit for two clients (with low-RAM hardware; in one case, even lower than me!) for reasons of *stability*, not speed. The very things that are required of 64-bit Windows (especially 64-bit Vista) only increase the stability metric. And it is *because* of computers that are always-connected (and thus far more vulnerable than pre-broadband computers) that the 64-bit server, and now the 64-bit client, make all sorts of sense. Vulnerabilities that are taken for granted with 32-bit are vastly reduced, if not eliminated altogether. Also, the performance loss need not happen at all (in fact, I haven't noticed a performance loss with WinRAR64 compared to WinRAR32). Even better, I have lost NONE of my applications due to moving to 64-bit. (With Office 2010 itself moving to 64-bit, I can safely say that I will NEVER outgrow Office in my lifetime. Given enough RAM, I can tackle Excel spreadsheet workbooks the size of the Pacific Ocean, or SQL databases the size of Jupiter. The limitation is the HARDWARE, not the application. That's what 64-bit brings to the table.)
PAE is a kludge; an elegant kludge (and a universally-supported kludge), but still a kludge. Even the developers know it's a kludge. It's no substitute for a fully 64-bit operating system and 64-bit applications. Desktops with loadouts of 8 GB of RAM (or more) are not niche workstations any more; you could buy Dell (or HP) desktops with 6 GB of RAM for under $1000USD...before Barack Obama was even nominated for President! (In fact, you still can...and with Core i7 920 CPUs to boot.) The 32-bit client operating system (even from Microsoft) is NOT meant for most new hardware; the hardware has mostly made the compatibility jump already!
32-bit operating systems are designed/meant mostly for three groups: those running older hardware (the secondary-use market and netbooks, primarily), cowards (there's still a lot of FUD surrounding 64-bit, both on the operating-system AND the application front), and *hostages* (application X won't run in a 64-bit operating system).
I do agree that there still really is not a lot of reason for most individuals to move up to the x64 version. You really need 4gigs to show any real benefit outside of a few select processor enhancements.
The good news, however, is you can probably pick up a quad core computer with eight gigs of memory for $599.
And stability isn't a good reason?
I made the move (and in fact recommend the move) for reasons of increased stability (not to mention that there was literally no application *cost*, as all my applications were supported in the move; in some cases, I could crossgrade to a 64-bit native version). Starting with Vista Ultimate, the only real cost in crossgrading to 64-bit from 32-bit is time, as when changing *bitness*, the CD key remains the same. If you figure that, at some point, you will even get to 4 GB of RAM before you replace your system, there is actually less reason to even *start* with a 32-bit version of Windows (despite that my current motherboard tops out at 4 GB, I fully plan on reaching that before I replace it) if the CPU supports 64-bit.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.