Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[hdood]

And it would be fairly simple for Microsoft to have the installer check which type of hardware it was being installed on and use the correct version.

I think they should ship both on one disc. You do not want this to be automatic though, because most of the time the 32-bit version is being intentionally installed on 64-bit hardware, and you want that to be possible. It could use it to offer a recommendation.

[Knife Party]

i think the only way MS is going to go mainstream with 64bit is if they force their hand on the market and purely go 64bit. I think 32bit had its spotlight days, its time for 64bit to shine and mature even further. Anyways, the majority of hardware now runs 64bit, so they just need to push a litte of their behalf

[Xtreme $niper]

They should cut the loose ends and go 64-bit only. Bite the bullet. Frankly I'm tired of Microsoft lagging behind in Windows development for the sake of appeasing some phantom business/corporate users' legacy systems. Newsflash: those corps are still on Windows XP anyway. By the time they get to Windows 8, the rate of adoption for 64-bit will be double what it is today.

It's one of the main reasons why I switched to Mac OS. Apple is not afraid to cut out old hardware for the benefit of the future (sorry PPC owners). See where it has gotten them now? They have a cutting edge OS that hit the ground running ever since the Intel implementation. They had a brief transition period to deal with compatibility in the short term, and now you have to be running year 2006 or newer hardware to run any of the latest OSes. If Microsoft is prepared to do something similar, then by all means they might have a chance at making a great OS.

Oh, and also: please drop the registry and strictly enforce APP_DATA usage. Thanks.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

64-bit.

[acnpt]

As much as I'd like to see 64-bit only, what about the ****loads of netbooks around.

Does MS just forget about them?

[spaceelf]

I can see keeping 32 bit around for edge cases like that, but I would hope they make the 64 bit install the default.

[KamiQuazi]

As much as I'd like to see 64-bit only, what about the ****loads of netbooks around.

Does MS just forget about them?

They would be limited to Windows 7 Starter. A netbook is useful for internet browsing, word editing, and the stuff of the likes. I wouldn't want one as a mainstream device. 64-bit or nothing. Why drag on a die architecture?

[Owen W Veteran]

If more than 50% use 32-bit, there is no point of releasing only 64-bit versions of Windows 8. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions should be released.

Right, and hold back the rest of the world.

They would be limited to Windows 7 Starter. A netbook is useful for internet browsing, word editing, and the stuff of the likes. I wouldn't want one as a mainstream device. 64-bit or nothing. Why drag on a die architecture?

My netbook is 64-bit... >_>

[hdood]

Why drag on a die architecture?

It's about money, not ideology. A lot of people on here seem to think that companies want to push some ideology instead of just doing what they feel will maximize profits.

[spaceelf]

It's about money, not ideology. A lot of people on here seem to think that companies want to push some ideology instead of just doing what they feel will maximize profits.

From what I can see MS just cut off 32 bit Exchange.

They also announced 2008 to be the last 32 bit Windows Server release. 2008 R2 does not have a 32 bit version.

It's hardly unreasonable to think they lost some money over that (and knew that they would.)

And this is why people suspect the desktop will soon follow suit.

[KamiQuazi]

If they keep x86 architecture in Windows 8, do you want it Windows 9 aswell? Sorry for thread-jacking, but if the 16-bit platform never died off, would it still be used today on Windows 7?

[y_notm]

They would be limited to Windows 7 Starter. A netbook is useful for internet browsing, word editing, and the stuff of the likes. I wouldn't want one as a mainstream device. 64-bit or nothing. Why drag on a die architecture?

Where's the margin on that? Windows Starter has almost none. Microsoft makes up that revenue with Anytime Upgrades. If you lock out upgraders, you lock out a significant revenue stream for netbooks.

[Raa]

You can be almost sure that Windows 8 will go 64bit. It just makes sense.

[redvamp128]

Well depending on whether or not they are going to re-use Windows7 as their base- the core files I mean- Then that could determine if there is just 64bit or Still a remaining 32-bit version.

Though as people have said before-- some netbooks still run a 32-bit processor... so Windows 8 may also have a 32bit version if they continue to rise in popularity.

Personally -- I only have 2 computers here at the house that have a 32bit processor. One it is possible to upgrade the memory to 2gigs and run Windows 7. But I think it will remain at Windows XP- for its life or go the route of Linux if the web becomes so unusable.

But I do think Windows 8 will more than likely contain a 32 bit version.

[Mr. Dee]

Wrong. I've seen third party hybrid discs of Vista and 7 made that have both on a single layer disc. And even if it did require a dual layer disc, it doesn't cost them much (if anything) more to produce them. Most movies that you buy (even bargin bin movies) are on dual layer discs. You seem to be thinking of the price difference between a single and a dual layer DVD-R disc. And it would be fairly simple for Microsoft to have the installer check which type of hardware it was being installed on and use the correct version.

I have seen them too and they are missing certain files to reduce the size so both architectures can hold on the same DVD.

[LightShadow]

I say, move to x64 for Windows 9. Wait until most apps and drivers are x64 compatible. I know they will all work on x64, but in x86 mode. I mean some of the everyday apps I use like :

Google Chrome

Windows Live Essentials

Metrotwit

Seesmic

Spotify

and more are only x86. Wait until the majority of apps and drivers are x64 ready. But I guess it would be good and bad, good because then it might get buisnesses/schools etc to get new computers for the new OS. But the more likely and bad side is that they will stay with the same OS. (And that's a thing we don't want, because XP is just too old now. 7 would be okay, but still)

[Mr. Gibs]

I say, move to x64 for Windows 9. Wait until most apps and drivers are x64 compatible. I know they will all work on x64, but in x86 mode. I mean some of the everyday apps I use like :

Google Chrome

Windows Live Essentials

Metrotwit

Seesmic

Spotify

and more are only x86. Wait until the majority of apps and drivers are x64 ready. But I guess it would be good and bad, good because then it might get buisnesses/schools etc to get new computers for the new OS. But the more likely and bad side is that they will stay with the same OS. (And that's a thing we don't want, because XP is just too old now. 7 would be okay, but still)

Well 32bit applications work fine on a 64bit OS, so there's no point in waiting for a lot of them to be upgraded.

[Mr. Dee]

What is interesting though is that the latest Microsoft Office 15 build leaked is 64 bit. Which probably suggest Microsoft might indeed be planning simplify things by going 64 bit only in some respects. The latest 64 bit ATOM processors are 64 bit capable including some previous generation models.

I noted before, its very much possible that Microsoft might limit 32 bit upgrades to retail boxed packages and let new systems ship only with 64 bit Windows with exception to Starter, although, that might even go 64 bit in the next release.

[kaffra]

If they keep x86 architecture in Windows 8, do you want it Windows 9 aswell? Sorry for thread-jacking, but if the 16-bit platform never died off, would it still be used today on Windows 7?

16bit -->32bit was a big increase, at least at that time with the software looks and ability. running 32 bit or 64 bit right now doesn't mean much to the avg user.

btw you can still run 16bit software on win7 32bit.

[ViperAFK]

I say, move to x64 for Windows 9. Wait until most apps and drivers are x64 compatible. I know they will all work on x64, but in x86 mode. I mean some of the everyday apps I use like :

Google Chrome

Windows Live Essentials

Metrotwit

Seesmic

Spotify

and more are only x86. Wait until the majority of apps and drivers are x64 ready. But I guess it would be good and bad, good because then it might get buisnesses/schools etc to get new computers for the new OS. But the more likely and bad side is that they will stay with the same OS. (And that's a thing we don't want, because XP is just too old now. 7 would be okay, but still)

Every single one of those apps works perfeclty in 64 bit windows... I have yet to see an app that doesn't work in windows vista/7 64 bit. Only REALLY old apps that aren't updated don't work.

[Dashel]

Seems to me that much like IPv6, this issue will be forced instead of adopted. There are few compelling reasons to go 64 for most. Hell, how many games even have 64bit clients yet? Benches show very little delta of the rare few.

I can play any game fairly comfortably in a 2GB app space, that speaks volumes. Not that I'm not currently running 64 or won't be getting the 64bit version of 8. Plus, I thought 8 was all about the slate/tablet/cloud. 64bit does even less for that market.

The simple fact that it isn't a hinderance is the reason you are seeing such adoption. Most of these new 64bit users simply spent the extra $100 at Dell on a non-Celeron POS.

[spaceelf]

If I can play just about any game in a 2GB app space then that still speaks volumes.

Many games use a compiler flag that allows them to use more memory than that when in an x64 environment. It's a bit more important for strategy games (when you have 8 players and hundreds of units in game, 32 bit OSes can have issues) than much else at the moment, as most games are scripted to not use a lot of resources at once.

Whether or not any game devs are actually taking advantage of x64 elsewise, 32 bit environments are definately a problem.

[hdood]

From what I can see MS just cut off 32 bit Exchange.

They also announced 2008 to be the last 32 bit Windows Server release. 2008 R2 does not have a 32 bit version.

It's hardly unreasonable to think they lost some money over that (and knew that they would.)

It's more likely that there was no demand for the 32-bit version and that they decided it did not make financial sense to keep it.

[Mr. Dee]

Its not about a lack of demand, but its about simplifying and making better use of the hardware advances. 64 bit hardware has been available since fall 2003, thats nearly 8 years. Also, there are significant performance benefits when using 64 bit computing in enterprise scenarios, access to larger amounts of memory, better for things like databases, engineering, financial analysis, animation and data modeling.

[hdood]

Its not about a lack of demand, but its about simplifying and making better use of the hardware advances.

No, it is not. Microsoft is a corporation that exists to make money. Demand is much, much, much more important than some ideological desire to push 64-bit. As long as maintaining a 32-bit version is more profitable than not doing so, they will keep doing it.

Again: Microsoft is a corporation. Their goal is to maximize profits.