• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Poll: Should Windows 9/Threshold be X64 only?

Should Windows 9/Threshold be X64 only?  

286 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

+LogicalApex    1,747

Windows 9 will likely be 64-bit only, but it will keep the WOW 32bit layer until Windows 128bit at least...

 

It took until Windows x64 for MS to drop 16bit support so you can likewise expect them to keep 32bit around for a similarly long duration of time...

 

Also, why would you drop WOW anyway? The majority of "64bit" chips are merely 32bit chips with lots of extensions to add 64bit power to them in areas that make sense for consumers. There is no performance or "emulation" cost to running 32bit software and code on these systems and as such it is feasible that a lot of software will continue to be 32bit for a long time into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    6,705

Not until they stop shipping 32bit systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

Windows 9 will likely be 64-bit only, but it will keep the WOW 32bit layer until Windows 128bit at least...

 

It took until Windows x64 for MS to drop 16bit support so you can likewise expect them to keep 32bit around for a similarly long duration of time...

 

Also, why would you drop WOW anyway? The majority of "64bit" chips are merely 32bit chips with lots of extensions to add 64bit power to them in areas that make sense for consumers. There is no performance or "emulation" cost to running 32bit software and code on these systems and as such it is feasible that a lot of software will continue to be 32bit for a long time into the future.

 

I highly doubt it. firstly there's no reason for them not to keep the 32 bit version, there are however reasons to keep it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotenks98    520

No but make it x64 with 32-bit apps. Just no x86 version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

i voted yes: in my experience and from talks with windows users, they have at least a quad-core, 8GB ram, 2GB graphics to even use that tile-based piece of os fluently..... :ike:

BS - however, Windows 8 (not 7) should have been x64-only, if only to eliminate hardware that is woefully inefficient (anything older than Intel's Core CPUs).

 

What has kept a LOT of folks from upgrading isn't backward compatibility - in that arena, Windows 8 - never mind the upgrades - has even Windows 7 beat on that score.

 

What has kept folks from upgrading is the lack of a Microsoft-included and built Start menu.  (That's not me saying it - but the majority of Windows 8's detractors, on Neowin and elsewhere.)

 

The only software I didn't take with me from 7 is that which was overtaken by software now part of the OS core.

 

In fact, I can't name so much as ONE hardware upgrade since 8 went RTM that was OS-driven.  (Basically, what upgrades I have done would have happened anyway - 8 or not.)

 

As a matter of fact, in an identical NeoPoll concerning Windows 7, I voted for IT to be x64-only.

 

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

NO. Surely you cannot be serious? That would simply destroy gaming on Windows.

Again - BS.

 

I migrated to x64 on the much-maligned Windows Vista - and I've been on an x64 of Windows as my default OS since.

 

Look at Steam - Windows in x64 is the overwhelming majority of running bases;  I don't see Steam being affected one whit.

The same applies to Origin - in fact, Origin has x64-exclusive games, which Steam outright lacks.

Anyone thinking that gaming needs to remain x32 should actually play a game in which both bitnesses exist IN both bitnesses - Battlefield 4 is a prime example.  (However, in order to do that, you have to be running an x64 bitness of Windows.)

All x32 does is preserve older hardware - period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boo Berry    2,264

Windows 9 without a x86 variant released? Yes.

Windows 9 without a x86 variant released AND no WoW64 in x64? Hell no. That'd be stupid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Fahim S.    1,063

As has been pointed out a number of times on this thread already, a pure 64 bit Windows is very impractical.

I would imagine there is a good chunk of Microsoft software that has been compiled as 32 bit.

 

This said, more applications compiled to intermediary language or bytecode would make the emulation layers irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

I highly doubt it. firstly there's no reason for them not to keep the 32 bit version, there are however reasons to keep it. 

HawkMan, the ONLY reason to keep x32 OSes around is preserving older hardware.

 

While XP64 had issues with compatibility with x32 software, Vista had fewer such issues, and every Microsoft OS forward (to the present 8.1 x64) has had fewer still.

 

So if it isn't the software, the older hardware is all that is keeping x32 checked in the OS column.

 

Neither Intel or AMD has even manufactured a non-x64 desktop CPU (outside of Atom) since before Intel's Core architecture - and does Atom even count?

 

And if you DO count Atom, even IT has gone x64 (in fact, it has been x64-ubiquitous for over a year) - so even that dog no longer hunts.

 

As far as Windows OSes goes, x32 OS versions need to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Windows 9 without a x86 variant released? Yes.

Windows 9 without a x86 variant released AND no WoW64 in x64? Hell no. That'd be stupid.

Nobody is saying that.  WoW64 works, and it's been a part of every desktop AND server x64 Windows since it was introduced in Server 2003/XP64.

 

If anything, WoW64 is more stable than a "naked" Win32 is.

 

That is, in fact, why I can safely eliminate software compatibiity as an excuse.

 

Even more telling, you don't need tons of system RAM to enjoy the benefits - and mostly never have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Right now, you can buy tablets with 2 GB memory (I'm skipping the crazy cheap tablets with only 1 GB memory). These tablets need 32-bit Windows, if you install 64-bit Windows on them, it will have impact on the performance.

I'd say they need to get rid of the 32-bit full version, but keep a 32-bit upgrade edition for these older tablets.

 

Ditch WOW64? Never... there's no reason to. Microsoft would be shooting themselves in both feet by removing 32-bit compatibility.

Oh?  I migrated desktops with all of 512 MB of RAM to XP64 - half that of the cheapest tablets, and one-quarter that of the 2 GB tablets you specified.  Generally speaking, if a tablet bogs down with x64, it will STILL bog down with merely x32; the differences are THAT minimal, and have been that minimal since at least 7, if not older.  (Also, the reason FOR that bog has nothing to do with CPU or RAM loadout, but substandard graphics.  Improve the graphics, and the bogdown decreases, if not goes away altogether.  However, that requires changes in tablet hardware.)

 

It's time to move away from the "baby chicks" (cheap) mindset, even in terms of tablets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddman    358

Releasing only a 64-bit version would be fine, but removing WoW64 doesn't seem to be a good idea; not yet anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Studio384    1,439

So if it isn't the software, the older hardware is all that is keeping x32 checked in the OS column.

If you think Windows tablets that are released today are old hardware...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Fahim S.    1,063

HawkMan, the ONLY reason to keep x32 OSes around is preserving older hardware.

 

While XP64 had issues with compatibility with x32 software, Vista had fewer such issues, and every Microsoft OS forward (to the present 8.1 x64) has had fewer still.

 

So if it isn't the software, the older hardware is all that is keeping x32 checked in the OS column.

 

Neither Intel or AMD has even manufactured a non-x64 desktop CPU (outside of Atom) since before Intel's Core architecture - and does Atom even count?

 

And if you DO count Atom, even IT has gone x64 (in fact, it has been x64-ubiquitous for over a year) - so even that dog no longer hunts.

 

As far as Windows OSes goes, x32 OS versions need to retire.

 

The only Atom processors that I could find that were 32 bit were the N270 and N280 which were from 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

If you think Windows tablets that are released today are old hardware...

And what are they running for graphics?

 

If the CPU isn't the issue, and the RAM definitely shouldn't be the issue, then why are they running x32 OSes (since the cost difference between x32 and x64 is exactly zero)?

 

The cost difference between x32 and x64 in terms of Windows has been none since Vista - so that isn't it.

 

So you tell me - why x32 for even tablets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chugworth    401

When I first saw the question, my knee-jerk reaction was to vote Yes.  I've always thought that Windows Vista should have been the last Windows to bother with a 32-bit version.  But then I read the post and saw that it also meant to exclude WOW64.  I'd still vote yes.  Sure it wouldn't be a smart choice for Microsoft.  The public reaction would dwarf what happened with Windows Vista.  But at least it would give a kick in the pants to the developers that are still lagging behind at releasing 64-bit versions of their programs.  Though there are getting to be fewer of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Migra    4

YES! We're in the x64 age now!!!! If you want x86 then install/keep Windows 8,7,Vista or XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor    1,105

Nobody is saying that.  WoW64 works, and it's been a part of every desktop AND server x64 Windows since it was introduced in Server 2003/XP64.

 

If anything, WoW64 is more stable than a "naked" Win32 is.

 

That is, in fact, why I can safely eliminate software compatibiity as an excuse.

 

Even more telling, you don't need tons of system RAM to enjoy the benefits - and mostly never have.

Read the first post, removing WoW64 is literally the point of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

Again - BS.

 

I migrated to x64 on the much-maligned Windows Vista - and I've been on an x64 of Windows as my default OS since.

 

Look at Steam - Windows in x64 is the overwhelming majority of running bases;  I don't see Steam being affected one whit.

The same applies to Origin - in fact, Origin has x64-exclusive games, which Steam outright lacks.

Anyone thinking that gaming needs to remain x32 should actually play a game in which both bitnesses exist IN both bitnesses - Battlefield 4 is a prime example.  (However, in order to do that, you have to be running an x64 bitness of Windows.)

All x32 does is preserve older hardware - period.

 

Did you read the OP ? he wanted to have WoW64 removed as well, meaning you couldn't run any but a couple of older games, and a few new games coming out that are 64 bit native 

When I first saw the question, my knee-jerk reaction was to vote Yes.  I've always thought that Windows Vista should have been the last Windows to bother with a 32-bit version.  But then I read the post and saw that it also meant to exclude WOW64.  I'd still vote yes.  Sure it wouldn't be a smart choice for Microsoft.  The public reaction would dwarf what happened with Windows Vista.  But at least it would give a kick in the pants to the developers that are still lagging behind at releasing 64-bit versions of their programs.  Though there are getting to be fewer of them...

 

No it wouldn't, because nobody would install it.  and for a whole lot of things, 64 has no benefit over just running 32. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elenarie    830

 

Well that turned out so great.

not dropping it would be dumber.

 

Please enlighten us simpleton how would we be able to play all of our 32-bit games that have long gone out of support.. Also, how would going 64-bit only benefit in the first place? All software would have access to is more memory and some additional security layers, nothing else.

 

Going 64-bit only doesn't make anything better automagically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Well that turned out so great.

 

Please enlighten us simpleton how would we be able to play all of our 32-bit games that have long gone out of support.. Also, how would going 64-bit only benefit in the first place? All software would have access to is more memory and some additional security layers, nothing else.

 

Going 64-bit only doesn't make anything better automagically.

Dropping WoW64 would be a dumb move because too many developers (for whatever reason) have refused to move away from x32.  (I'm not talking older software - but current software.)

As far as older games that are no longer supported, you are keeping them *why*?  Nostalgic value?  The fact that you have the hardware now that you didn't have (in the game's heyday) to run the game in their top tier? (That is, admittedly, why I still play older versions of SimCity - I have the hardware now to run them at their best, which I did NOT have when I purchased the games new.)  What was supposed to be (originally) a stopgap measure, however, has become a boat-anchor - WoW64 was not meant to have an indefinite shelf-life - not even according to Microsoft.  Now, WoW64 has become a reason itself for developers to stay put.

 

We users are going to have to decide this one - do we want software to advance - or do we want more "meh"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taim    89

If you want to push for less 32-bit software don't buy/use it, find alternatives that are 64-bit, your continue use of 32-bit software is telling publishers/developers that a demand for 64-bit software isn't there. By switching to a 64-bit alternative might influence ever so slightly for the software you switched from to also move to 64-bit.

 

Not exactly the same thing but Linux gained enough momentum that big companies that were Windows and/or Mac exclusive are now developing for it. And enough people moved to Firefox to get Microsoft to give IE a much needed overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mugwump00    183

Dropping WoW64 however, has become a boat-anchor...

 

We users are going to have to decide this one - do we want software to advance - or do we want more "meh"?

 

WoW64 has an virtually imperceptible footprint, it costs very very little in terms of performance or overhead.  What incentive is there for developers of apps that work comfortably within the 2+2GB NT-x86 architecture to cut themselves off from all PC devices (and virtual machines) sold or built as 32-bit?

 

Not producing an x86 build is a matter of coercion between MS and OEMs - producing a Windows version with no WoW64, when there's no architectural reason for it would be absurd!  The history of Windows NT is littered with non-binary compatible variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Indeed anyone thinking about removing WOW64 should really go look at task manager and see just how many proccesses are still 32bit...

It's actually most of the apps on the average system.

It's why I said that WoW64 isn't just about legacy software, but CURRENT software - way too many developers have refused to move.  Microsoft itself faces a rather interesting conundrum with Skype - an x64 version does not exist, currently - why?  How many other semi-niche or niche software applications within Microsoft have no x64 versions?  Amusingly, WoW64 is itself being used - by developers - as a reason to not move; how many developers are saying - when put to the question - that WoW64 lets them stick with what they have as opposed to a massive re-code to a pure x64 framework?

 

That is how stopgaps - which WoW64 was supposed to be - become crutches and/or boat-anchors.

 

I admit to being torn - and I'm someone that leverages WoW64 on a daily basis as a user!

 

It's why I asked the question earlier in the thread - will we let Windows advance, or will we continue to rely on the crutches - and, admittedly INCLUDING WoW64 - long after we've taken off the plaster (or fiberglass) cast on our ankle/foot?

 

(In the developed world, most "plaster" casts are now made of fiberglass - it is why Owens-Corning - which is known for "Pink Panther" fiberglass for building construction along with Gorilla Glass and communications fiber - has a Medical Products Group that supplies fiberglass casting materials - I had such a cast on my right ankle in 2005 due to straining the ligaments of that ankle AFTER coming back home from a vacation in Lost Wages over Thanksgiving of that year.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

If you want to push for less 32-bit software don't buy/use it, find alternatives that are 64-bit, your continue use of 32-bit software is telling publishers/developers that a demand for 64-bit software isn't there. By switching to a 64-bit alternative might influence ever so slightly for the software you switched from to also move to 64-bit.

 

Not exactly the same thing but Linux gained enough momentum that big companies that were Windows and/or Mac exclusive are now developing for it. And enough people moved to Firefox to get Microsoft to give IE a much needed overhaul.

And even Linux has the same crutch (via the ia32 libs) - in that respect, ia32libs is the Linux version of WoW64

 

In fact, ia32libs, like WoW64, was meant to be a stopgap.  However - again, like WoW64, ia32libs has become a boat-anchor/crutch on Linux.

 

Even OS X has its own version of the same *stopgap/crutch* - not all of their applications, or even all their drivers, are purely x64.

 

I began moving to x64 where practical - Waterfox is my preferred browser, and has been on the Windows side of things since 7.  (I moved BACK to Waterfox because a fully x64 version of Adobe's ubiquitous Flash Player now exists and is compatible with Waterfox  I moved to Office x64 with 2010's Consumer Preview - lock, stock, and Outlook - and 2013, and especially Outlook, oddly enough, would have given me even less reason to stay with x32 by either moving some plug-ins native or, for stuff that had to remain plug-ins/add-ins, making them x64.  Result - not so much as ONE x32 add-in or plugin is installed anywhere within Office.)  On the gaming side, where I have come down on the x32/x64 divide can be tracked easily enough - I have either posted in - or created myself, several threads specific to x64 gaming on Windows - and by x64, I mean x64 executables or even x64-exclusive Windows games (such as Titanfall or even - don't faint - Plants v. Zombies Garden Warfare; yes, the Pea Shooter and the Sun Flower are now fully x64 due to PopCap using a modified version of the Frostbite engine.)  Still, those are exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.