Windows 7 - 64-bit computing.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

To me Windows Vista 64-bit is just not quite there, for me.

It's not just Windows or Microsoft, it's the drivers or the lack of maturity of the platform as a mainstream.

Then again, there are no 64-bit mainstream Applications ATM, but I think with Windows 7 drivers will be more robust and we will see the emergence of 64-bit applications.

I think you're reasons for waiting are hollow at their core...

New hardware should be 64bit compatible since MS requires 32bit and 64bit drivers for a Vista WHQL logo. If your product doesn't submit its drivers to WHQL then you have to complain to the maker or return the hardware so the company gets the message you care not only for 64 bit drivers, but for reliable ones as well(on new hardware, of course).

In terms of applications... Don't expect a major jump to 64bit apps probably for another 10 - 15 years (in terms of the majority of applications being 64bit). Although that time horizon can be extremely long, and this not very optimistic on my part, it makes sense in my honest opinion. Mainly for the following reasons.

1. The majority of applications don't need more than 4GB of RAM and the extra large integers offered by 64bit. That isn't to say there aren't applications that can and will really enjoy the leap to 64bit, but that's not the mainstream stuff and that won't come for a while.

2. 64bit runs 32bit extremely well. Well enough to be native performance wise. This allows developers to target the 32bit market and 64bit market at the same time, with little effort, unless their application specifically benefits from 64bit.

For me, I run Vista 64bit and I find not one single negative compared to 32bit in my usage so I'm sticking to it. But I think if you're waiting for a major shift by developers don't look for it to happen fast. I think the transition to 32bit took well over 10 years to occur fully.

That being said... Hardware makers will be shipping 100% 64bit machines by middle to end of next year. Regardless of if they are shipping Windows 7 or not.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Windows can't do much to "push" 64-bit computing forward; what it can do is provide the same streamlined experience under both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, working closely with hardware companies to ensure driver compatibility. But the jump will happen due to modern computing benefiting from more than 4GB of physical address space; as more and more software evolve to take advantage of the new capability.

[alisalem]

Of course they should! I don't see myself ever going back to 32-bit environment.

The RAM support is the main reason.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I'm running Vista64 and haven't come across any problems. Scanners, bluetooth dongles, graphics, soundcards, add-in cards and such all work fine, with software compatibility at a similar level. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions but I haven't found them. Vista64 works as it should... you don't notice it.

Will Win7 be the gateway to 64bit? I can't see why not. It would be great if it defaulted to the 64bit version if it detects the appropriate hardware, as that would force the last developers holding out to get onboard or be left behind. Developers have had years to work with the technology and Win7 is still a while off; if they can't sort their act out in that time then that's rather sad. The same needs to happen with IE8 and web standards, as currently web developers are lazy and take shortcuts that only work with IE7.

[gigapixels Veteran]

That's a great idea. Of course, I don't like them forcing anything on you, but if they made it detect your architecture and install the appropriate version (with a hidden override available for those that wanted it) that would be really cool.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

With more programs, and more support for 64bit, I think Windows 7 64bit will be the next big thing. Vista is already supported in 64bit, and has enough support to use it daily, that windows 7 SHOULD be fully supported

[AltecXP]

I'm all for 64-bit as long as it is due because program REQUIRE more ram, but that they are just made by lazy programmers that have no problems leaving in bloat and holes.

[Ghostdraconi]

The main catalyst will be the increased memory, once 4GB become the norm people and manufactures will have no choice.

[jporter]

It looks KIND OF pointless to me going 32bit for Windows Seven. Vista runs nice on 4GB and I wouldn't want anything less now I've experienced 4GB. I can imagine a newer OS using a bit more memory and you don't wanna have only 3GB.

Anyway 64Bit Vista Ultimate here, it runs very good, no hardware/driver problems at all. Same for my laptop.

[goji]

I'm curious if the transition to 64 bit Vista was a mandate by MS or the collective will of PC manufacturers. Either way this does help the transition to a full 64 bit world much sooner than I had even expected.

[Mikee99]

I would personally love to see MS force 64-bit Windows 7 only, with the only caveat that they make continued service packs for Vista that contain many of the underlying behind the scene improvements so 32-bit consumers don't get entirely left behind.

Since I do doubt that MS would make Windows 7 64-bit only, for 64-bit to really kick off, they would have to change the way Windows is bundled. Obviously, they need to place 64-bit DVD's in the retail boxes. Or, better yet, they should make 1 DVD that contains both the 32 and 64-bit versions. With that route, they should make 64-bit the default (if hardware permits), but easily allow the user to select a 32-bit version to install.

[goji]

^ I thought both versions for Vista were on the same disc.

[NEVER85]

64-bit is definitely the way to go. I can't imagine using a 32-bit OS ever again after my experiences with Vista x64. Bring on Windows 7 x64. :yes:

[Mikee99]

^ I thought both versions for Vista were on the same disc.

The 32-bit version is on 1 disc, and the 64-bit one is on another. If you have Vista Home Premium, or Business (I think Basic too), you have to order the 64-bit disc from here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033...ia/default.mspx

The Vista Ultimate box contains 2 DVD's: 1 32-bit and 1 64-bit.

[darkz]

it would be useless to make it 32bit, cause all new computers come with 64bit cpu's

[ironsight2000]

<br />it would be useless to make it 32bit, cause all new computers come with 64bit cpu's<br />

<br /><br /><br />

but then we will have people complaining that they did not make windows 7 for the 32bit computer

[ViperAFK]

I think the windows after 7 will dump 32 bit completely. By then nearly all 32 bit cpus will be obsolete.

[+Mystic MVC]

I definitely hope so although I think Microsoft will still hold back giving their customers one more generation.

I started thinking about this a lot when I looked at some of my friends' laptops they got for college and several of them had 4gb systems with Vista x64 installed. I had no clue the industry was already pushing them that fast, kudos!

[RAID 0]

Did Windows 2000 come in a 16 bit variant? What about XP? Why even offer 32 bit in Windows 7. Just get it over and done with.

[darkz]

<br /><br /><br />

but then we will have people complaining that they did not make windows 7 for the 32bit computer

lol, why?

even now there is hardly anyone who wants to run vista on a single core cpu

[waruikoohii]

Did Windows 2000 come in a 16 bit variant? What about XP? Why even offer 32 bit in Windows 7. Just get it over and done with.

No, they didn't, but you're comparing Apples to Oranges.

16 bit CPU's were obsolete in the mid-1990's, a good five years before Win2k came out, and several years before WinXP came out.

As I recall, NT 3.1 wasn't even offered in a 16 bit x86 version, and 2k and XP are based off of that.

[RAID 0]

No, they didn't, but you're comparing Apples to Oranges.

16 bit CPU's were obsolete in the mid-1990's, a good five years before Win2k came out, and several years before WinXP came out.

As I recall, NT 3.1 wasn't even offered in a 16 bit x86 version, and 2k and XP are based off of that.

That is exactly my point. 32 bit CPUs are obsolete, no need to make an OS for them...a modern OS.

[Ayepecks]

I don't see the market going 64 bit unless PC manufacturers all do it... and there's nothing to indicate that for as long as Microsoft keeps offering a 32 bit version.

[afusion]

I'm predicting yes

Just by looking at Adobe CS4 being 64 bit first on Windows is telling me something.

[waruikoohii]

That is exactly my point. 32 bit CPUs are obsolete, no need to make an OS for them...a modern OS.

Not a very good point, then.

In the 1990's, the 16 bit CPU's were extremely slow, and could address very little memory. There was a pressing need to migrate quickly to 32 bit software.

There's not so much of a need right now. 64 bit software isn't twice as fast. Normal people don't ever bump up against the 32 bit memory barrier. 32 bit only processors are plenty fast to run modern OS's.

There is no dire, pressing need to get everyone on the 64 bit platform as quickly as possible.