64-bit is old hat, Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows
 

Believe it or not, Windows 7's successor(s) have been in the planning and early development stages for a while now. We haven't posted anything about any of them yet, but we've been watching closely to see if anything really interesting turned up. Exactly two weeks ago, it did. A LinkedIn profile, which has already been taken down, for a Robert Morgan, Senior Research & Development at Microsoft, has shone a sliver of light on the possibility of 128-bit support coming to Windows 8.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-windows-9.ars

Software still won't support it until 64 bit is turned off, MS failed to axe 32bit with Windows 7 so I don't expect them to get it right this time

7 was supposed to be 64bit only, but probably because Vista x64 wasn't a great succes (id Vista wasn't a success overall :rolleyes: ) and x64 driver support is still too basic to push the market in x64.

When Windows 8 comes out, 64-bit support should be much better and not bringing out a 32-bit version of Windows 8 wouldn't be as catastrophic for sales as not brining out a 32-bit version of Windows 7.

What's wrong with 64bit right now? There isn't any reason to go with 32bit due to 64-bit driver support anymore, in my humble opinion.

That is the point, there was no reason to relase a 32bit Version of 7 and now it stalls 64 bit software development.

There are still a lot of programs that don't work on 64-bit systems, 64-bit drivers aren't always available either (or they can't be installed because they aren't signed) and in office environments 64-bit isn't necessary because you don't need 4Gb of RAM to use Office...

chicken-egg problem, if you don't force developers to code in 64 bit they won't

Definitely agree on that one, but Microsoft probably didn't have much choice because of bad Vista sales and Seven has to make up for these bad sales (and a 64-bit only versions probably wouldn't do that).

plenty of 32bit only CPUs out there

Source?

Would those systems even recieve an OS upgrade?


Microsoft had a choice because it is Microsoft.

Apple is cutting off old system support in new OSes and almost noone complains.

Most intel Atoms are x86 only.

Are you surprised Apple is cutting support for the powermac ? It's a completely different architecture.

Would you upgrade an Atom based device with Windows 7 Home Premium which already costs half as much as the device itself?

Would Intel stay on 32 bit if MS dropped support?

home PCs are >4 years minimum.
Work PCs are ~4 years on average.

++ you'll earn more money by making products that will work with as many PCs as possible;)

I'm running Win 7 Pro on my MSI Wind FYI, it's faster then XP for general usage; it's a 32-bit only CPU.

AMD A64: 2003
Intel 64: 2004

We are past those 4 years and my argument that it makes no sense to BUY an OS for such old PCs is still valid (most consumers just buy a new PC).


You also do not earn more money when you make products that work with all PCs, there is always the cost side of having to run almost twice as many SKUs, do the testiung for both versions, develop and support 2 versions.

afaik Atom is released more recently ;)
also there are A LOT of applications which don't play nice in a 64-bit OS;
even if there's 32-bit emulation.

The decicion to stay on 32bit with Atom was made in the past, where MS failed to take a bold step and declare that they don't support 32 bit in 7.

Again, you don't take into account that it's Microsoft. Noone can afford to ignore them (Windows 7 made sure this will stay this way for the next 3 years).

Without Intel, Microsoft wouldn't have a platform to sell their software on; without Microsoft, Intel would have platform without software.

hand in hand;)

Okay, not !
The thing is, without Microsoft, Intel would still have Apple to ssell their stuff to. Without Intel, Microsoft would sell their stuff on AMD platforms, or maybe even go to the dark side and code their stuff to work on PPCs :D .

For the Atom cpu's, Microsoft is probably more hoping to sell 7 already installed on future nettops instead of just XP.

Very few tend to upgrade their OS's, not many 32bit-only Pentium 4's left either. :-p Cost of the OS is > than worth of the PC.

You would also save a good deal on costs by only having to develop/qualify a single 64bit stack, and being able to focus development resources. Potential gains in sales would be also be small, so far I only know of one individual that has upgraded to Windows 7 but still has a 32bit CPU.

About half the Atom's DO support 64-bit. Nettop Atoms were mostly 64bit...

Atoms are still a small slice of the pie, and no other currently manufactured CPU is 32-bit only. Since some Atoms support 64bit, would not be much issue for MS to impose on Intel to scrap the remaining 32bit versions.

Windows 7 Starter is 32-bit only... could have sold Starter on netbooks/nettops and am sure that would have made laptop manufacturers very happy. Windows Server 2008 R2 is 64bit only, no reason for the rest of the Windows versions to not follow suit, except for Starter.

Wutske, you are likely right in that MS wanted people to accept Windows 7 and prevent a repeat of Vista, that may have been why they refused to rock the boat any. Micorosft has zero reason to make Windows 8 32bit though, except for maybe a Starter version for the developing markets.

Secondly, I have still not seen anyone list specific problems with 64bit compatibility... I've been using 64bit OS's for three years, the only issues I still see today are with legacy hardware/software. If legacy compatibility is an issue, then they shouldn't be upgrading OS's, or should just dual-boot.

source? Afaik Atom is mainly netbook, the nettops are a flop:)

It's a small list of very specific tools, but there are many more

• RMClock utility doesn't work (due to driver signing, unless you sign them yourself and run Seven in test-mode)
• Speedfan doesn't work (due to driver signing and selfsigning doesn't work either)
• ACR-122 NFC card reader doesn't work (no handle returned by driver on x64 OS)
• TrendMicro RootKit Buster doesn't work on x64 OS
• Rootkitrevealer also refuses to work on Seven x64 (haven't tested it on 7 x86 to be honest ;) )
• Visual Studio is still completely 32-bit and even Visual Studio 2010 won't be made for x64.
• Debugging 64-bit applications is limited (eg. you can't change a 64-bit app when it's being debugged while you can with a 32-bit app)
• SQLite doesn't work in a 64-bit .NET application
• Xilinx FPGAA development tools seem to have a problem with 64-bit OS'es too.

A small list of small problems, but it does show that 64-bit OS's aren't ready yet to completely take over 32-bit.

I do believe tough that when 8 comes out, things might be different.

I'm pretty sure the complete list is longer, also issues inherit to Vista/7 , not 32-bit vs 64-bit

For individual models, use Intel's Ark. For a quick, broad overview use the wiki. Looks like all dual-core Atoms have 64bit as well.

Wutske,

RMClock is a good example. The program is not updated, extremely narrow core of users, and was made for no longer manufactured CPUs. If they wanted to update the program it would work.

Speedfan does work, I am using it right now... it has worked for a long time and even on Vista. :p

TrendMicro Rootkit program is interesting, looks like early beta. Is likely they will write it for 64bit later, but there are other Rootkit searching programs that are compatible.

Rootkit Revealer is yet another old piece of software last updated three years ago and no longer maintained.

Visual Studio - That is interesting to know, but keep in mind 32-bit programs can work just fine under 64bit OS's. That is why there are two Program Files directories, one for 32bit applications and the other for native 64bit programs. Reading the box, Visual Studio 2008 does support Vista 64bit.

SQLite - Then why not use 32bit Net applications? Just because you run a 64bit OS doesn't mean everything installed is 64bit.... I can run 32bit or 64bit versions of IE8 right now if I wanted, for example.

Excluding no longer updated programs, the list of programs with issues gets pretty short pretty quickly. TM's Rootkit program will likely offer 64bit support in future builds before they remove it from its initial beta stage of development. But if you want Rootkit programs that work on 64bit OS's, try F-secure's Blacklight and Sophos Anti-Rootkit, or just use an AV program with built in rootkit detection.

How did you get speedfan working ? Here the installer just keeps failing when it tries installing giveio.sys :redface:

The list I provided just shows that not everybody has yet made the step to supporting x64 operating systems and that there's still a lot of work to do before a x64-only operating system could be brought out.
What Microsoft could have done tough was making the x64-bit version more attractable, like giving a refund or something ... because lots of people aren't willing to pay the same price for something that's not working.

About the Atoms, there are indeed a lot of Atom cpu's with x64 ... but those aren't the popular ones like the N2xx which is mainly used in netbooks (I now realise that this isn't realy a strong argument because Microsoft could have made 7 a 64-bit only os while also releasing a 32-bit version of 7 Starter Edition ... ).

Anyway, I'm happy with 64-bit for now, both with Windows and Linux :) .

same here; but I also don't fail to see the use of a 32bit version for older machines and newer ones which simply don't support 64bit.

Speedfan released a compatible version shortly after Vista launched years ago, and it has worked since. Sounds like you are having a specific issue with that machine... 4.39 is the current version.

That is just it. Almost all of the incompatible programs are no longer updated. Which means they will never support 64bit OS's, and there is no point in delaying a 64bit rollout because of them.

That was exactly what I said earlier. It would have solved the situation nicely. :)

Gonna check tomorrow if I can get it working with the latest version ;)

I wouldn't say that. The NFC card reader for example did have a 64-bit driver for Vista and Windows 7, yet it failed to work (it did work on a 32-bit Vista).
The same goes for the Rootkit tool, it's still in development.

The Xilinx tools are indeed old, most of the tools are even written for linux and then ported to windows using cygwin... but we do use these older versions at school because they are free to use (and I don't think Xilinx is going to make a new x64 compatible version for free :-p ).


At least something we both agree on ;)