PyX Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Just 64-bit. It'll make things much easier for MS to develop... not like they had it easy right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 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! The existance of 32 bit Win7 doesn't seem to be hurting 64 bit 7, so does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unintentional Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 NOTHING should be supporting 16bit anymore. I think Microsoft would probably do just fine if they made Windows 8 a 64bit only release; it might even force stragglers to upgrade to Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azies Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Make it 64-bit only, but keep the 32-bit backwards compatibility that current 64-bit versions of Vista and 7 have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howling Wind Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 They could make it 32-bit and 64-bit on the same disk. Instead of selling 2 versions. IIRC Macintosh OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" has the 32-bit kernel and 64-bit kernel. I can boot into the 64-bit kernel and just run 64-bit apps (programs) or stay in 32-bit (which I do) and run both 32-bit apps and 64-bit apps. If Microsoft does this with Windows 8 I think it will make it easier for people who don't need 64-bit yet but don't want to go out and buy 64-bit later when they are ready for it. Just a idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Should dump the 32-bit version, but retain x86_64. At least 32bit programs will still work and there will be more of a push towards 64bit over the coming years. Nagisan 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagisan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Should dump the 32-bit version, but retain x86_64. At least 32bit programs will still work and there will be more of a push towards 64bit over the coming years. +1 I doubt we will see this happen for awhile though, chances are Windows 8 and 9 will both still support 32-bit, beyond that they may finally force the change to 64-bit, but who knows. They need to at least keep backwards compatibility for 32-bit software until more developers release 64-bit native programs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhav Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 The existance of 32 bit Win7 doesn't seem to be hurting 64 bit 7, so does it really matter? Erm...it's not hurting Windows 7 but it is hurting 64-bit application development. Companies like Adobe and Mozilla are dragging their feet. If Microsoft commits to releasing a 64-bit only OS in, say, 3 years time...that will definitely encourage developers to devote more resources to 64-bit development. The problem at the moment is that developers know that 64-bit users are still in a significant minority. If that changes, then so will their focus. And as others have mentioned, given that x86_64 supports 32-bit applications anyway, I think it would be a good idea to release only x86_64 Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 the should ditch 32bit as SKU not as backward compatibility 64bit windows are backward compatible with 32bit application. This. They should start with windows 8 being 64 bit only but retaining 32 bit compatibility (obviously, no point in removing it). This will move more and more people onto 64 bit and 32 bit apps will run fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysah Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 They should bring a lot of developers on board and have them develop 64-Bit software and drivers before the release of Windows 8. Then make it 64-Bit only and it will rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamblerFEXonlin Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 NOTHING should be supporting 16bit anymore. I think Microsoft would probably do just fine if they made Windows 8 a 64bit only release; it might even force stragglers to upgrade to Windows 7. No, I wish Windows 8 would have an 16bit sandbox for dos and windows 95 applications so I can play old classics like Dune 2, Doom, X-Com UFO, One must fall etc. Today I'm limited to what Dosbox are compatible, but it works well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo158 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 No, I wish Windows 8 would have an 16bit sandbox for dos and windows 95 applications so I can play old classics like Dune 2, Doom, X-Com UFO, One must fall etc. Today I'm limited to what Dosbox are compatible, but it works well. Why? I play Doom and Doom 2 just fine using DOSBox, even on Windows 7 x64. The problem is that adding 16-bit support to a 64-bit OS costs time and money, resources that are better spent improving other areas of Windows. Not to mention the people that would complain about Windows having more "bloat". I'm sure those applications would run fine using virtualisation, so why not have a VM running Windows 95 to play older games. A lot of those games are also available on Steam and/or GOG.com and work fine on modern OSs like Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon. Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 They should drop the 32bit SKUs, but of course keep the WoW64 compatibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 I don't get why Microsoft breaks everything up into separate versions on separate discs. Just merge 32-bit and 64-bit versions together like Mac OS X Snow Leopard and let the OS choose what version is best for your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inklin Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I don't get why Microsoft breaks everything up into separate versions on separate discs. Just merge 32-bit and 64-bit versions together like Mac OS X Snow Leopard and let the OS choose what version is best for your computer. I agree there! One SKU for everyone at one price and one license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyntaxError Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I think Win8 should be 64 bit with full 32 bit compatibility. No separate 32 bit version of Win8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazure Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 I want them to only release it in 64-bit, and treat it like the x64 windows 7 (where it still works just fine with 32-bit apps). Tired of seeing clueless, ignorant people installing 32-bit when they have tons of RAM and wasting their hardware needlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Blue01 Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 There should only be a 64-bit version, let's get rid of 32-bit hardware! But it'll need to support 32-bit software for the forseeable future, and I'd like 16-bit software support if that was possible. I'm not sure which the poll refers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 Tired of seeing clueless, ignorant people installing 32-bit when they have tons of RAM and wasting their hardware needlessly. What do you care really? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RvXtm Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 64 bit with WOW64 for legacy, it will take a lot of time until people will be using pure 64 bit environments and applications for that. The wide majority of apps are still 32 only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockwiz Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 My dad said people were super pizzled when Apple dropped Floppy drives from the iMac. It had to go. 32-bit needs to go sometime soon too =/ I feel bad for Microsoft personally. They do one thing people complain. They do another and people are still upset. Can't win for lose >.< Yep, but that's the way it's going to be for any product ever invented. Everyone has different preferences and the internet tends to bring out the critics, not the praisers. Personally I like to move forward, and think they should ditch legacy, but my opinion is no more valid then the guy still running his pentium 4... even still, if you're using hardware that old, you shouldn't be running windows 8. By the time windows 8 comes around, they should be able to get by with a 64 bit only SKU... I mean, 64 bit has been around for years now... even a netbook will be able to support it on the cheap by the time windows 8 comes around. Of course we will need 32 bit software compatibility for the next 10 years yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 was just implieing that 32bit software run just as good performance hit is sugnificent when running under intel IA64 architecture For the Itanium, the performance hit *is* significant, but for a different reason; unlike either Core or Core 2 architecture CPUs, Itanium has more in common with RISC-Reduced Instruction Set Computing-than with the standard 32-bit x86 architecture. Itanium uses an on-chip just-in-time compiler to handle x86 instructions; however, it was never intended to handle a steady diet of them. Itanium was a hedge-bet on Intel's part, from back when RISC CPUs were going to be the Next Big Thing. (Itanium was created back when DEC was still an independent company, Sun hadn't even started talks with AMD, and MIPS was actually NEC Semiconductor's hottest selling product.) What's happened since? DEC (which created the Alpha RISC CPU) was (except for the semiconductor business) acquired by Compaq, which was in turn acquired by HP (at the urging of then-CEO Carly Fiorina); DEC's semiconductor business was, in fact, acquired by Intel itself. (Intel was not new to RISC CPUs even then; Intel had previously produced the i860, i960, and i432 (AKA iWarp); however, despite their relative success in niche markets, they remained dwarfed by the CISC, and specifically x86-architecture, CPU marketplace.) Sun would start putting AMD (specifically Opteron) CPUs in their servers (and eventually some workstations). Despite not dropping SPARC, Opteron would eventually eclipse SPARC in terms of hardware sales for Sun, which would in turn signal that other SPARC licensees should follow Sun's lead. Opteron, like Core, is a CISC-architecture CPU. Also, like Core (specifically XEON), Opteron has the L2 and L3 cache on the CPU die. Lastly, like XEON (and Intel's own Pentium Pro before it) it was *not * intended for general-purpose compouting at first. (THe big showcase for early Opterons was, surprisingly, a custom-written version of Solaris.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted May 16, 2010 Veteran Share Posted May 16, 2010 ?Companies like Adobe and Mozilla are dragging their feet. The entire Creative suite is 64bit now? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightShadow Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 The entire Creative suite is 64bit now? :huh: But we still lack x64 flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 But we still lack x64 flash. Safari 64-bit on Mac OS X Snow Leopard manages to run 32-bit plugins, including Flash, just fine. Maybe Internet Explorer 64-bit should be able to do the same? That way you'd have no reason to still include a 32-bit version of the browser as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts