LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksLOL good luck with that happening.Originally Posted by iseeuu
LOL good luck with that happening.
i think it's likely to happen. the limitations of 32 bit memory mapping are holding up the industry so it's natural that they will change to a 64bit exclusive until the need arises for something higher.
Alright.
First off, lets READ the thread before we reply. If you HAD, you would know that MOST computers have been x64 capable for YEARS.
So I don't know where you got your information (especially living in the US).
Second, I really hope it is only x64. I think a good option would be to offer a free download of a VM with XP preinstalled on it, for x86 compatibility. This way, people can keep their XP and ancient programs, and everyone else can move into the future.
~Lordbob
I can't help wondering, reading through this thread, how many users of machines that aren't X64 capable would be thinking about upgrading them.
By definition they are unlikley to be enthusiastic upgraders or wanting to spend good money on a whole new 64bit OS if they're getting the uses they want from existing kit- otherwise they wouldn't be using the machine they have or the 32bit OS either.
Even the majority of upgrades from Vista to 7 will have been the cheaper upgrade versions that can't go from 32 to 64 bit.
Only three months ago, before I got my new computer, I had an Intel Pentium T2060 dual core, and it didn't have 64 bit support.
I can tell you this: IT WAS HORRIBLY FRUSTRATING.....Everybody is talking about 64 bit and I felt like the only one saying that 64 bit is unnecessary.
My point: There are many users who are 32 bit processor only and microsoft cannot alientate them.
64 bit also means more memory to handle and load during bootup so slower 64 bit processors are better off running 32 bit (though with less security and slightly slower disk performance)
From Intel, All the Core 2 Solo, Duo and Quad + i3, i5, i7 are 64-bit.
Thats nearly ALL their processors, excluding Pentium and Celeron series, which are horrible anyway. This means most of Intels processors support 64-bit. And when Eight will be released, even more will have gone 64-bit.
Coolness, you are correct about 64 bit processors. according to this link "The first AMD64-based processor, the Opteron, was released in April 2003." That will soon be 7 years! I share the disappointment in that 64 bit has not developed more.
But what some other posters have stated is also true in that there are still limited choices of 64 bit enabled hardware, drivers, and software. In Video for example. Also 64 bit scanners (and still many printers). Many of today's computers, even those equipped with 64 bit processors, do not have adequate hardware elsewhere to make 64 bit practical.
The market is guided by supply and demand, not by forcing change.
MS would be shooting themselves in the foot to make Windows 8 a 64bit only OS... There are still a majority of users that run 32bit machines, and at SF, the majority of problems are with 64bit versions of Seven... Just my thoughts...
While I agree, its the fact that we are catering to older machines, 32-bit architectures, etc. That progress with 64-bit applications and I'm betting even some progress on Windows itself is being hindered.MS would be shooting themselves in the foot to make Windows 8 a 64bit only OS... There are still a majority of users that run 32bit machines, and at SF, the majority of problems are with 64bit versions of Seven... Just my thoughts...
I say go 64-bit only. If people really NEED Windows 8, fine, just make sure you have a capable machine. Microsoft should not need to make every version of Windows able to be run on machines such as the ones my grandparents have (2.0Ghz Pent4, 256MB RAM.. its horrid).
Microsoft needs to push 64-bit more, its the only way we'll see more progress with almost everything, I'm sure a lot will complain "Now my 10-year-old desktop cannot run the latest Windows!". Well I say boohoo, get over it, upgrade if you 'need to have the latest'.
Hate to disagree but I have a dell inspiron 1405 core "duo" and it does not support 64 bit.
Now to the holy war I can see both sides of this one. I dont think MS will shoot themselves in the foot. They want to sell as many copies of 8 as they can.
How many MS OS'es supported 16 and 32 before support for 16 disappeared. I think they will support 32
Unless MS gets their act together on 64bit I own a 64 bit capable and am running 32 bit on it. Way to many BSOD's in 64bit, way to many driver problems
Ken
Microsoft MVP--2010 Desktop experience
Reply With Quote