Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Micro$oft is demolishing 32 bit


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 yahoouk

yahoouk

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 518 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:19 PM

Hi All,

Uncle Bill is starting to kill 32bit OSs. ;)
They are demanding to push users to use 64 bits. ;)
Since they launched Windows 7 on 22nd Oct, PCs Giants (DELL, HP...) are selling only 64 bits and if you want to change to XP or 32 bit, they will charge $120 or more..
I am sure lots of buyers don't understand about difference of 32bit and 64bit. And then they will soon be disappointed with 64bit when using more applications and games which are not very compactable with 64.
How do you think, it is OK for you or opnion.., thanks.

YahooUK

#2 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1030 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:27 PM

Hi All,

Uncle Bill is starting to kill 32bit OSs. ;)
They are demanding to push users to use 64 bits. ;)
Since they launched Windows 7 on 22nd Oct, PCs Giants (DELL, HP...) are selling only 64 bits and if you want to change to XP or 32 bit, they will charge $120 or more..
I am sure lots of buyers don't understand about difference of 32bit and 64bit. And then they will soon be disappointed with 64bit when using more applications and games which are not very compactable with 64.
How do you think, it is OK for you or opnion.., thanks.

YahooUK

I guess in one respect its ok as it will force developers to make more 64bit and/or compatible 64bit programs. Apple as been exclusively 64bit for quite some time now. It may be a pain in the rear at first, but I think in the long run its going to help things get better.

#3 yahoouk

yahoouk

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 518 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:43 PM

I guess in one respect its ok as it will force developers to make more 64bit and/or compatible 64bit programs. Apple as been exclusively 64bit for quite some time now. It may be a pain in the rear at first, but I think in the long run its going to help things get better.


Yes and No.
How long has 32bit taken to be smooth to run in the long run in the past?
One decade or more?, and who will be suffered, Micro$oft? definitely not.
People who use their OSs. Those people are victims of Microsoft and PC Giants, I think.
Personally, I don't use and not want to use 64bit till next few years.
Hopefully, they support 64bit anyhow.

Regards,

YahooUK

#4 thewhitrbbit

thewhitrbbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:33 PM

I think it's a good idea in the long run.

I used Windows 7 64bit for some time in the Beta and it did run faster (even compared to Win 7 32bit) and my photo editing was faster.

I had to go back to 32bit because the lack of print drivers and lack of 64bit Flash support.

I think that Microsoft will finally force the hand of companies to produce better 64bit software, and hopefully Adobe will produce a 64bit flash for Windows.

Our office, for the first time, is also developing a 64bit standard image for professors and workers who need or want the benefits of 64bit.

#5 AeroXP

AeroXP

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 177 posts
  • Location:0000:7c00
  • Interests:Motorola 68000 Assembler, PCs, Betas, Boot Disks, x86 Assembler
  •  
    United States

Posted 23 October 2009 - 10:15 PM

Hi All,

Uncle Bill is starting to kill 32bit OSs. ;)
They are demanding to push users to use 64 bits. :cheers:
Since they launched Windows 7 on 22nd Oct, PCs Giants (DELL, HP...) are selling only 64 bits and if you want to change to XP or 32 bit, they will charge $120 or more..
I am sure lots of buyers don't understand about difference of 32bit and 64bit. And then they will soon be disappointed with 64bit when using more applications and games which are not very compactable with 64.
How do you think, it is OK for you or opnion.., thanks.

YahooUK


64bit is bad for us 32bit HAL and video driver developers, we have to rewrite mostly everything due to macro and struct changes.
---
64bit Memory manager is also 32-bit compatible, you know, Windows Server 2003, with some tweaking, can support more than 4GB of RAM on 32bit.

Anyone want this special kernel on x86? It's for 2k3 SP1.

#6 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:02 PM

Windows 8 will be 64 bit or 128 bit. No 32bit.

#7 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4163 posts

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:40 AM

Im still using a 32bit OS even though I can run a 64bit OS.

Im looking forward to moving to 64bit OS sometime later for now im happy with my 32bit.
The new hardware is there for 64bit OS. So will the companies and people that create software and Drivers follow the 64 bit path.

There is always emulated 32bit. Most new Hardware runs fast and makes most emulators work consistent without too many hiccups.

#8 MarkKB

MarkKB
  • Members
  • 1 posts
  •  
    New Zealand

Posted 26 October 2009 - 04:44 PM

Hi All,

Uncle Bill is starting to kill 32bit OSs. ;)
They are demanding to push users to use 64 bits. :confused1:
Since they launched Windows 7 on 22nd Oct, PCs Giants (DELL, HP...) are selling only 64 bits and if you want to change to XP or 32 bit, they will charge $120 or more..


Um... Microsoft isn't doing anything. PC makers have been going to x64 by themselves - the trend started well into the launch of Vista. The version they sell at retail is still predominately 32-bit, AFAIK.

There was an article on this a while back, I'll see if I can dig it up.

#9 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1030 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 28 October 2009 - 09:08 PM

Windows 8 will be 64 bit or 128 bit. No 32bit.

128bit??? why who would every need more than 128 MB GiB RAM???????? :confused1:

#10 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:06 AM

It was not very long ago that dos computers came with 1MB and that seemed more than enough.

However much memory you have its never enough.

#11 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 October 2009 - 01:57 AM

For new computers, the chips have all been 64 bit for MANY YEARS, so this is just a normal evolution, just as we went from 16 to 32...

Other than drivers, and even they are becoming more and more 64 bit, there is little or no reason to NOT use the 64 bit OS. Yes, there are some legacy printers and scanners, etc. that don't have the right drivers. For the rest of the stuff, if you have older HW, then by all means, stick to the older OS's - like XP :confused1:

Even Adobe is going to stop supporting 32 bit versions of their tools (like photoshop)...and besides, I think Uncle Bill has other things to worry about...

Overall, this is a good thing! Certification of TWO flavors of the OS is a burden on all software makers, so the sooner we can drop the 32 bit versions, the better!

#12 billonious

billonious

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 528 posts
  • Location:greezeland
  • Interests:curiosity

Posted 29 October 2009 - 01:35 PM

Pay for 64 bit windows, pay for compatible software, pay for this, pay for that ... The certification concept will throw many freeware software away. Also, more and more younger people are getting familiar with IT/programming/Linux stuff (other than my uncle's generation who only knows how to turn on/off pc). Maybe, this will be a further push for using linux at home.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users