Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Steve Hazzard What happens to 32 bit machines if Windows 7 goes exclusively with a 64 bit kernel?
Quote:
they become as obsolete as the 8088 and the 286
IMO, making Windows 7 an exclusive 64 bit OS would be a really dumb choice by MS! Although, I've seen the Redmond boys do similarly dumb things in the past e.g., changing all the commands in Office 2007 and outright lying about the hardware compatibility of Vista. There is a vast installed base of Windows 32 bit machines, I just can't see MS self-castrating themselves for the sake of a new OS! Bill Gates would have to come back to work and "clean house" if Windows 7 is released without a 32 bit version!
IMO, making Windows 7 an exclusive 64 bit OS would be a really dumb choice by MS! Although, I've seen the Redmond boys do similarly dumb things in the past e.g., changing all the commands in Office 2007 and outright lying about the hardware compatibility of Vista. There is a vast installed base of Windows 32 bit machines, I just can't see MS self-castrating themselves for the sake of a new OS! Bill Gates would have to come back to work and "clean house" if Windows 7 is released without a 32 bit version!
How long do you propose before this industry should make the jump to 64-bit? By the time Windows 7 is released, 4GB of RAM will be normal, and in order to access that much RAM you MUST have a 64-bit OS. If MS moves to a new kernel, it would be the PERFECT chance to make the jump because all the drivers would need rewritten anyways. They should have done it with Vista but there are still too many 32-bit CPUs in use that could eventually be upgraded. In 2010 that wont be the case.
How long do you propose before this industry should make the jump to 64-bit? By the time Windows 7 is released, 4GB of RAM will be normal, and in order to access that much RAM you MUST have a 64-bit OS. If MS moves to a new kernel, it would be the PERFECT chance to make the jump because all the drivers would need rewritten anyways. They should have done it with Vista but there are still too many 32-bit CPUs in use that could eventually be upgraded. In 2010 that wont be the case.
So what do you do with the billions of $$$ worth of installed 32 bit machines, junk them for the sake of an OS that doesn't have much 64 bit application support? If Vista is any indication of where MS is going with W7, they might just miss the "Bridge out ahead" sign!
So what do you do with the billions of $$$ worth of installed 32 bit machines, junk them for the sake of an OS that doesn't have much 64 bit application support? If Vista is any indication of where MS is going with W7, they might just miss the "Bridge out ahead" sign!
if they dont go to a 64 bit system, what incentive is it for software manufactuers to start using the extra processing power of the 64 bit processors? The 64 bit processor has been out for a LONG time, and it is not being used to its full capacity. There are times when the industry will HAVE to move forward. The 32 bit systems are going to be grossly outdated by the time they do make the jump. The industry should not hold back because of a few that still insist on using a 32 bit processor. As far as I know, there are no longer any 32 bit only systems being sold.
asking the computer industry to hold back based on 32 bit processors is like telling chevy that they dont need to develop new cars because the '57 chevy does everything anyone would want.
if they dont go to a 64 bit system, what incentive is it for software manufactuers to start using the extra processing power of the 64 bit processors? The 64 bit processor has been out for a LONG time, and it is not being used to its full capacity. There are times when the industry will HAVE to move forward. The 32 bit systems are going to be grossly outdated by the time they do make the jump. The industry should not hold back because of a few that still insist on using a 32 bit processor. As far as I know, there are no longer any 32 bit only systems being sold.
Exactly - in 2010 there will be no reason for MS to accommodate for computers that were on the low-end 6-7 years before. In 1995, a lot of people were still running 386 systems which were sold as late as 1990. They couldn't be upgraded to 32-bit Windows NT OR Windows 95, so they were replaced with something that could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hazzard
So what do you do with the billions of $$$ worth of installed 32 bit machines, junk them for the sake of an OS that doesn't have much 64 bit application support? If Vista is any indication of where MS is going with W7, they might just miss the "Bridge out ahead" sign!
Last I heard Windows 7 will still be 32-bit, which I think is a mistake, but MS agrees with you on it. I bet the 64-bit version of W7 will start to see more widespread use than 64-bit Vista sees today because by 2010, people will want 4GB of RAM or more.
if they dont go to a 64 bit system, what incentive is it for software manufactuers to start using the extra processing power of the 64 bit processors? The 64 bit processor has been out for a LONG time, and it is not being used to its full capacity. There are times when the industry will HAVE to move forward. The 32 bit systems are going to be grossly outdated by the time they do make the jump. The industry should not hold back because of a few that still insist on using a 32 bit processor. As far as I know, there are no longer any 32 bit only systems being sold.
32 bit XP Home and Pro is still being sold at retail and there is a ton of 32 bit XP product still in the pipeline when retail sales of XP officially end in June 08. There is also the non-Windows 32 bit OS's such as Linux, Unix, Solaris and Novela that have a large installed base. IMO, it's not the OS that's the sticking point for 32 to 64 bit conversion, it's the huge value of the hardware and software that the current 32 bit OS's are running on and the significant investment needed to upgrade to 64 bit hardware and software. The US economy is in a down cycle, recession or whatever tag you want to hang on the current state of the US economy. I highly doubt that corporate America is going to want to step into the huge $$$ investment of 64 bit hardware and software.
My son works in IT/MIS at a local hospital, there are still many systems that are running Windows 2000 Pro years after MS dropped OS support. The hospital is in the process of upgrading the W2K Pro systems to XP Pro. The servers are running Server 2003 OS. Three is absolutely no though of upgrading to Vista or any other 64 bit OS, the $$$ investment would be astronomical!
32 bit XP Home and Pro is still being sold at retail and there is a ton of 32 bit XP product still in the pipeline when retail sales of XP officially end in June 08. There is also the non-Windows 32 bit OS's such as Linux, Unix, Solaris and Novela that have a large installed base. IMO, it's not the OS that's the sticking point for 32 to 64 bit conversion, it's the huge value of the hardware and software that the current 32 bit OS's are running on and the significant investment needed to upgrade to 64 bit hardware and software. The US economy is in a down cycle, recession or whatever tag you want to hang on the current state of the US economy. I highly doubt that corporate America is going to want to step into the huge $$$ investment of 64 bit hardware and software.
My son works in IT/MIS at a local hospital, there are still many systems that are running Windows 2000 Pro years after MS dropped OS support. The hospital is in the process of upgrading the W2K Pro systems to XP Pro. The servers are running Server 2003 OS. Three is absolutely no though of upgrading to Vista or any other 64 bit OS, the $$$ investment would be astronomical!
the cooperate world and defiantly the government are always behind the line as far as getting into new software. There is no need for them to upgrade at this point if the software they have is working for them. Your making it sound as if when a new version of windows is released that everyone must run out and buy the software immediately or face a computer that is as good as a paper weight. When Windows 95 was released, and they dropped DOS support. Windows was built with a program that could be considered DOS lite lol. It would still run some DOS programs, but most importantly it was designed for future programs. I had many programs that would not work with Windows 95. I was not mad, I knew that the computer industry was moving forward, and it MUST move forward, or it will stall and nothing will get done.
I could care less as to what Linux users are doing, the number of computers running Linux is so small compared to Windows based machines, hell even mac users are so small compared to windows users. At the moment Windows sets the bar, In the future it might be mac. They have recently moved into Intel processors, which are now 64 bit processors as well. Mac will most defiantly follow suit if Windows goes into a 64bit mode, they will lag behind a bit, but they will move the same direction.
Linux will never gain as much support as a windows or mac based machine because of the learning curve of the system, and yes there is a learning curve to it.
in 2006 the office I worked for was still using Autocad release 14, it was released in the mid 90's. It was running on machines still using Windows 95. There came a point where the industry moved on from what we were using, and we had problems getting things from and to our clients. We had to upgrade, instead of bitching and complaining that the industry should stand where it is because some are still using outdated software and computers, we upgraded. It was for the better, we have more powerfull software and machines now. For the time being it is working for us, the clients can get things from and to us with minimal effort. In the future I know we will NEED to upgrade again to move with the industry, with comptuers this is just a way of life, if you stand still you loose.
As I stated earlier, why design new cars when the '57 Chevy filled all of our transportation needs, or heck why move from the Model T? all the newer versions of cars only had this fancy thing called heat and AC, the majority of drivers will do just fine without that fancy stuff.
Mac OS X (Leopard) is actually a 64-bit operating system that contains 32-bit libraries to avoid problems with old drivers. They have already made the jump. I think if companies still running Windows 2000 are going to upgrade their current systems it will be to XP. That market wont be considering Vista or Windows 7 until they completely replace the machines. MS shouldn't hold the entire industry back because some companies are still using Pentium 3s with 64MB of RAM and they might want to upgrade to Windows 7 which it couldn't run anyways.
If in around 2010 I still have a 32 bit computer and a M$ OS comes out requiring a 64 bit computer to run - I'll say screw that!
I gotta change and go through the expense of buying a 64 bit computer to use "their glorious POS Virus/Trojan/Whatever bad else magnet and resource sucking with DRM" OS because M$ says so? - NO Freakin Way!
I hate when a company tries to dictate people on what to do and have when having the status quo equipment is much more than sufficient.
I'll just stay with Linux thank you who cares about everyones concerns.
If in around 2010 I still have a 32 bit computer and a M$ OS comes out requiring a 64 bit computer to run - I'll say screw that!
I gotta change and go through the expense of buying a 64 bit computer to use "their glorious POS Virus/Trojan/Whatever bad else magnet and resource sucking with DRM" OS because M$ says so? - NO Freakin Way!
I hate when a company tries to dictate people on what to do and have when having the status quo equipment is much more than sufficient.
I'll just stay with Linux thank you who cares about everyones concerns.
something tells me you would stick with linux no matter what the outcome is with any other sofware company. The majoity of computer users that are not completly savvy will not be able to get the grasp of Linux, thus they are going to have to move in the way that both mac and microsoft are moving.
I dont know why some are thinking that as soon as microsoft releases a new OS they must run out and buy it before the world comes to an end. If what you have is working, then by all means stick to it. But dont complain when you realize that the industry has moved forward. This happens in the gaming world ALL OF THE TIME. They figure out some new tech. that requires a more beefy graphics card. Well you are going to have to upgrade, or not get the game. Happens with the console gaming systems as well. Either upgrade, or be left behind when that happens.
I would rather work my way up to the newest or a newer version of a Chevy, or ford than be using a Model T for my transportation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
