| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Most important news about Windows '7': 32-bit to live on | |
|
||
| Time: 14:04 EST/19:04 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Forget the "7" code name, which was already out there, or the 2010 release date, which was also neither new nor -- based on Microsoft Corp.'s lately abysmal record with hitting major release dates -- exactly set in stone. The most concrete news to come out of Microsoft Corp.'s well-executed leak of a few sparse details about the next version of Windows is that it will continue to come in both 32- and 64-bit editions. That will cause many Windows users, primarily businesses, to sigh with relief. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 4209 (198.68.16.40) at 7/24/2007 2:47:15 PM |
| Leave it to Microsoft to continue 32 Bit! That to me is the dumbest thing you can do. Why have dual, quad, or more core 64 Bit processors if no one is using them to there fullest. Why make a better product if you are fine with the status quo? |
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/24/2007 3:37:34 PM |
|
AMD and Intel 64bit processors run 32bit code just fine.
I suspect this has more to do with embedded and thin clients where 64bit processors are not as common. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 15:37. |
| #3 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 7/24/2007 4:08:04 PM |
|
#2 True although, and please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is that 32bit OSes like XP or Vista cannot handle more tham 3GB of memory, Yes theorically they could handle up to 4GB but practically speaking they really utilize 3GB.
While I understand MS position, they need to mantain backward compatibility, this status quo does not help increasing the availability of 64bit drivers and applications optimized for 64bit OSes. Nice catch 22. |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/24/2007 4:31:38 PM |
| Until most embedded processors are 64bit, I don't think it is a wise business decision to opt out of that market by only offering a 64bit OS. |
| #5 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/24/2007 4:58:30 PM |
|
#4, I suspect it is as much to do with the millions of device and related/signed 64bit drivers that would have to be developed [I mean.... people have been screaming about support in Vista for 7 and 8 years old ink jet printers.... how loudly would they howl if 32 bit support were dropped... ever]. Next to that are apps.... how many millions of apps.... all the dozens that so many professionals depend upon? Even a moment's thought about and about 10 seconds in the field supporting people, and it becomes very easy to see that while MS may want all things 64bit, 32bit still has a great deal of relevance.
I can imagine the headline: "Microsoft abandons 90% of its computers users!" This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 16:58. |
| #6 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 7/24/2007 6:58:51 PM |
| Microsoft is offering consumers the choice. Ain't nothing wrong with that. |
| #7 By 9589 (71.71.108.54) at 7/24/2007 8:02:05 PM |
|
By the time I get my Vista Ultimate 32-bit computer (Dell Precision Workstation 490) fully up an running, it is already consuming just under 1GB of memory. Loading it up with a dozen web sites in mulitple IE browsers, a couple of Office apps up and running, a VPN connecting into work, a TV card with the Bloomberg channel on, a virtual machine running XP on a multi LCD screen driving a 256MB Radeon video card and I am using 2+ GB of RAM memory out of 4GB on board. If I start a couple of additional VMs I am out of physical memory and paging back to disk.
And it is only going to get worse. Over the next couple of years, the use of a single computer to perform mutiple task as above will be the norm not the exception. It would be smarter if MS rolled out VPC 2007 to work with all versions of Vista and educated people on what it is and how to use it. Then, one can put any 32-bit in a VM and their set. In any event, whether MS sees the light or not, it will be shown to them. This decision will only make the move to 64-bit that much slower. |
| #8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/24/2007 9:37:27 PM |
|
#3, The actualy number is 3.6 GB on a 32bit based Windows OS [W2K3 Server, Vista, etc...] UNLESS, one makes some very minor adjustments - in which case, all 4 GB can be seen [being careful to note the limitations in what hardware one has and what it can support - some MB's can address 4 GB when using a 32bit OS].
***BTW, with just a little planning, 64bit is a snap to support - I heav read some really BS reviews about it and they just puzzle me... why they have so much trouble. I mean, if they are reviewing the OS/64bit, should they not know what they have and whether it is supported? #7, Vista manages memory very differently - so using 1 GB - 2 GB of RAM in a system with 2 - 4 GB of RAM on board and it is very normal to see it make use of that RAM. It locks and unlocks RAM very efficiently. Subjectively, a system with 1 GB RAM feels no different and behaves no differently when a few apps are used as when running 2 GB of RAM. Of course, if one has many apps open at once, then yes, more RAM helps. There is a lot of latent thinking regarding RAM use and Vista - where old conventions no longer apply. |
| #9 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 7/24/2007 11:03:12 PM |
|
I have stopped blaming Vista x64 when it comes to device driver issues. Its the third party hard ware developers that are to blamed for buggy performance issues under the OS. I just believe a lot of the issues faced by these same hardware developers is simply because Microsoft has raised the quality bar higher with Vista through the WHQL: better driver signing, required for Vista (x64) putting an end to the free for all kernel mode drivers that affected a systems stability if the driver was not written properly, User Account Control is another improvement in Vista I notice is affecting developers when it comes to device drivers, they simply need to improve their drivers to operate properly with the user priviliedges.
|
| #10 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at 7/25/2007 10:24:24 AM |
| I'm writing this from Vista x64. I'm never going back because I'm never dropping below 4GB of RAM. So far, the only thing in my house not x64 is my ISA server. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
