Nick Brunt Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Should they try to advance the future of hardware and software by forcing the upgrade to 64 bit or should they try to keep backwards compatibility? Feel free to give your reasons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Well, not to crush any dreams, but Microsoft isn't some ideological crusader. They'll continue to support 32-bit for as long as it's profitable, and that is certainly going to be past Windows 8. So much software is still 32-bit that it would be outright moronic for Microsoft to even consider it. I think it's more constructive to think of 64-bit Windows as giving you the ability to run 64-bit software where it's relevant. Some people appear to have something that borders on OCD and think they must have everything in 64-bit, for no real reason. dead.cell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Brunt Posted February 16, 2010 Author Share Posted February 16, 2010 Well, not to crush any dreams, but Microsoft isn't some ideological crusader. They'll continue to support 32-bit for as long as it's profitable, and that is certainly going to be past Windows 8. So much software is still 32-bit that it would be outright moronic for Microsoft to even consider it. I think it's more constructive to think of 64-bit Windows as giving you the ability to run 64-bit software where it's relevant. Some people appear to have something that borders on OCD and think they must have everything in 64-bit, for no real reason. I agree with you, Microsoft won't ditch 32-bit, and nor should they considering the number of 32 bit apps still being built today, but it's interesting to see what the Neowin community would like, and why they want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+InsaneNutter MVC Posted February 16, 2010 MVC Share Posted February 16, 2010 Im sure it was confirmed years ago that Windows 7 will be the last 32bit Windows OS. Electric Jolt 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 the should ditch 32bit as SKU not as backward compatibility 64bit windows are backward compatible with 32bit application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Paliath Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 See, I think the whole world should make the leap over to x64 from x86 as it's outdated, and in terms of performance, stability, and an all-around better experience as 64 bit is the future, however, unfortunately a lot of PCs are x86 only (especially netbooks). Microsoft shouldn't exclude all the people unfortunate enough to own such systems, so I say they work towards making x64 mainstream gradually like so: Windows 8 Starter [for emerging markets] - x86 only Windows 8 Home - x64/x86 Windows 8 Professional - x64 only SKUs are simplified above, and 8 Professional -- the highest SKU with features for enthusiasts/IT Pros/businesses -- is x64 only. They should do this as well as promoting x64 over x86 and working on OEMs to ship x64 editions of Home on all machines so x86 is more of a niche architecture reserved only for people who cannot run x64. My 2 cents anyways. Ryuu Tora, DragonKid and The_Wizard 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 the should ditch 32bit as SKU not as backward compatibility 64bit windows are backward compatible with 32bit application. Only if the 32-bit emulator is present (it can easily be removed/disabled, and this is an option in Server.) I read the question as being whether Windows 8 should ditch the emulator and only support 64-bit software, not if they should also release a 32-bit edition. I guess I misread. In that scenario it boils down to if enough people have hardware/software that only supports 32-bit. I suppose it brings us back to the question of whether it will be profitable to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambroos Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 32bit Windows (SKU) should be dropped. Of course the compatibility layer in x64 to allow x86 software shouldn't go anywhere the next 10 years or so. Going full x64 will be needed to fully use all of the hardware that will be out there when Windows 8 hits the shelves. Most people should already have PC's supporting x64 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted February 17, 2010 Member Share Posted February 17, 2010 I think Windows 8 should be 64-bit only. Most 32-bit apps can already run in that environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dav0 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I think Windows 8 should be both 32-bit and 64-bit. Alot of their market are still going to be running x86 systems, so why lose all those potential sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Honestly, ditch the 32 bit SKU, it's useless with any computer 5 years or newer. Keep 32 bit compatibility in the 64 bit version though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 on the note the recently released atom do have x86-64 extension support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Everyone I know has 4+ GB of RAM. I say let's do away with x86! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 In my opinion Vista should have just been 64-bit. It would have significantly raised the minimum specifications and relieved some of the bad press from people who upgraded old computers that simply weren't fast enough to give you a good experience from running Vista. But this is just my opinion and I'm sure many people will reply with 'What about the Core Duo from Intel that was released in 2006 and didn't have 64-bit' and things like that. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnotley2004 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I think it would be better 64-bit only, with compatibility for 32-bit apps like the current version of Windows 7. I just purchased a new server for school study, loaded with Windows Server 2008 R2, which is only available in 64-bit. It's the only way they'll get 64-bit to really kick-off. Sure, they might loose some revenue (not everyone likes to upgrade) but IMO, it's a step in the right direction technology wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Wizard Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I think it would be good if Windows 8 was just 64 bit, but I really can't see it happening, although a stepped approach like Paulz0r said would be good: Windows 8 Starter [for emerging markets] - x86 only Windows 8 Home - x64/x86 Windows 8 Professional - x64 only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Yes, yes and a million times yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I think Windows 8 should be the LAST x86 supported OS - but such a commitment needs to not only come from Microsoft but also vendors, manufacturers, developers, etc. Moreover, if this is to be the case, the support period would need to be extensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDave Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Is it not documented that most home users mainly upgrade their OS with the hardware? In that case I don't see the problem of pulling the x32bit OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Is it not documented that most home users mainly upgrade their OS with the hardware? In that case I don't see the problem of pulling the x32bit OS. Microsoft make most of their OS income from corporate licensing and OEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Everyone I know has 4+ GB of RAM. I say let's do away with x86! I'm saying that x32 has to go with Windows 8, but for an entirely different reason. Except for netbooks, name a CPU that has shipped in the last year that *isn't* 64-bit. (Even the Intel and AMD "Ron Weasley Family" of Celeron, Sempron, and Turion, is now x64-only.) The x32 netbooks have Windows 7 Starter and Home Basic now; what can be offered in any Windows 8 edition of these two SKUs that 32-bit CPUs in this formfactor can take advantage of? Despite your post above, x64 (even, perhaps especially, when it comes to Windows) isn't just about lots of RAM. (I have 3 GB, but run 7 Ultimate x64 for reasons of multitasking stability compared to x32.) If anything, multitasking will vastly increase in the testing cycle (and operational lifetime) of both Windows 7 and Windows 8 (that is over and above virtualization; even looking just at virtualization, x64 CPUs blow x32 CPUs away in that department). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 17, 2010 Veteran Share Posted February 17, 2010 Should it only be available for 64bit chips? yes (maybe a netbook version could be 32bit) Should it only run 64bit programs? Microsoft isn't that stupid. You've got a 15 year history of 32bit only programs, ignoring them completely in favour of the few apps written in the last few years (for mainly memory reasons) is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafaqueque Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Windows 8 should drop 32-bits version. Everyone has at least 4GB RAM on their system and 64-bits is almost mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Yes, I think Windows 8 should take a page from Server 2008 R2 and be 64-bit only. Every modern processor in the world today supports 64-bit, as far as I'm aware, and the more people using 64-bit operating systems, the quicker we'll see real 64-bit software being developed, to join Office 2010, Adobe CS5, etc. Realistically, though, I'm sure Win8 will be made available in 32-bit, as it's not going way anytime soon. 64-bit has plenty of advantages, but much like IPv6, actual real world adoption is slow, very, very slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted February 19, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2010 i would have liked to see Vista as x64 only, but that could not have happened in 2006. i guess im just tired of 32-bit OS's lingering, but i can understand adoption rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts