Windows 7 32 bit will live on

[Chaoswarrior]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/07/23/important-news-about-Windows-7_1.html

 

[Matt]

Nice find Chaoswarrior.

Now, I think that MS should drop 32 bit for the OS, BUT, keep backward compatibility, such as with virtulization, just the way that Leopard did it. It also keeps the code cleaner, and should remove some issues by not having more code. I read in [H]ardOCP's review of Vista, that the 64bit version of Vista worked better than the 32bit.

 

[the_blue_master]

in theory 64bit sould work better and in some cases it does its also more secure than the outdated 32 bit standard the issue in place though is those who do not want to upgrade to 64 bit components or cant have the issue of not being able to upate their OS and you know what that means for MS it means a big cut in sales and they cant afford that. dont get me wrong vista can be good but its hard to find drivers and software that run with the 64bit coding because developers are still more focussed on space saving and also being able to get the software out faster using a 32 bit coding. it is a shame though but its the way the computer industry works. i think by the end of 2008 we will start to see more 64bit focussed software but until then we are just going to have to play the waiting game.

 

[Chaoswarrior]

I think the best they could do is to put 32 bit nly in the 2 weakest versions,so they would push 64 bit,but they would still have 32 bit available!

 

[Matt]

Though I would like the kernel to be 64bit. So, I guess they could use a slightly different kernel for the 64 and 32bit versions.

 

[Chaoswarrior]

That might really be...

 

[jimbo45]

Some older hardware doesn't have 64 bit CPU's -- for instance the quite well performing PENTIUM 4 series (perfectly acceptable performance even today) won't run 64 bit OS'es. This hardware is still serviceable so why should people (especially in these times) upgrade to newer hardware when it's not necessary.

I'm still running one of these machines as a File, print and Email server and as an Internet gateway (using a Linux system).
It works fine -- been booted up about once in the last 6 months.
If you DO have a modern 64 bit capable machine even if it only has 1GB RAM I'd run the new 64 bit version if your hardware and applications work.
In the long term X-86 will be phased out or will only run as a separate Virtual Machine (or even in "emulation mode" on the 64 bit OS). It is possible that W7 will be the last 32 bit OS Microsoft produce.

Note there's still quite a lot of people out there running Windows 98 and Windows 2000. Windows Me thankfully never caught on.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[patrickt]

It will for me. My desktop has Windows7 beta 64-bit but my netbook is 32-bit.

 

[Athlonite]

YAY only reason i haven't gone 64bit yet is driver / programe compatability

 

[davehc]

"PENTIUM 4 series (perfectly acceptable performance even today) won't run 64 bit OS'es."
Not quite true. Since about b2005, most P4's are 64 bit capable. I have a computer from that era which runs Vista 64 bit, (and now Windows 7), perfectly.
So far, on three computers, including a 3 year old laptop, I have had no 64 bit hardware issues.

 

[mattisdada]

Hmmm.

I disagree with a fair few of the comments here.
Ive been using 64bit since Vista pre-RTM (The leaked RTM 3 months before it came on shelves). Vista has FANTASTIC 64 support. XP on the other hand, dont touch its 64bit. Doesnt have proper 32bit virtualisation. Unlike Vista and Win7....

The only time something doesn't work in 64bit (in Vista/Win7) is one of two reasons
1. Programmer decided to not allow it as it hasnt been tested
2. Its a high level system file (think AV and Drivers)

Ive had no issues with 64bit, its great. Oh and "Windows 8" (the next windows) will NOT have 32bit support. This has been confirmed by Microsoft themselves. And Windows Server 2008 R2 (Win7 server) is 64bit ONLY.

64bit is more powerfull in EVERY way. No reason to go for 32bit (running 32bit apps in virtualisation causes overhead, so you wont get the performance benefits in a 32bit program, a slightly slower performance).

 

[jimbo45]

Hmmm.

64bit is more powerfull in EVERY way. No reason to go for 32bit (running 32bit apps in virtualisation causes overhead, so you wont get the performance benefits in a 32bit program, a slightly slower performance).

I think you've missed the point about Virtualisation here.

The main issue (in this case) is to be able to run legacy hardware and applications for which there aren't any 64 bit drivers etc for all sorts of reasons including some basic one's like "Manufacturer no longer exists but equipment still perfectly good and serviceable). A lot of this kit is usally pretty high end gear of a profressional standard - far removed from consumer grade hardware and not normally seen in a typical home or office. It can also cost 100's to 100,000's of dollars too.

In these cases the "efficiency" of the VM isn't an issue -- and in any case with todays hardware the overhead of running these types of Virtual machines is relatively small. All you basically need is OODLES of RAM and enough disks to accomodate the Virtual machine with its OS, data and applications. Even the OODLES of RAM isn't significant these days as most desktops will have AT least 4GB RAM and may be as much as 16GB. A typical legacy application can run EASILY in most cases on a 512MB Virtual XP machine. --The way VM's work is too complex for this post but there ISN'T a relation of 1:1 between resources of HOST OS and Virtual Machine. The only thing the VM consumes a lot of is RAM - your 512MB RAM VM will use all of the 512mb. However virtual paging and Virtual I/O is done in a very different manner than that of the "Real OS".

In some cases you can actually get a VM to run at around 90 or even 95% of Native speed -- and considering XP systems are usually pretty OK that's good enough.

With the XP compatability feature in W7 there really isn't any reason after this release to continue supporting NEW 32 Bit OS'es any more. Once the Atom processor (used in a lot of Netbooks) is 64 bit enabled then W7 x-64 could even run on these as well.

Looks like MS have made sense in that this is a better route than to offer an "XP Downgrade" from W7.

(Note the XP compatability feature is a FREE add on to W7 which will become available later. I think you'll need a separate licensed copy of XP SP3 to use it however)
Cheers
jimbo

 

[mattisdada]

I think you've missed the point about Virtualisation here.

The main issue (in this case) is to be able to run legacy hardware and applications for which there aren't any 64 bit drivers etc for all sorts of reasons including some basic one's like \"Manufacturer no longer exists but equipment still perfectly good and serviceable). A lot of this kit is usally pretty high end gear of a profressional standard - far removed from consumer grade hardware and not normally seen in a typical home or office. It can also cost 100's to 100,000's of dollars too.

In these cases the \"efficiency\" of the VM isn't an issue -- and in any case with todays hardware the overhead of running these types of Virtual machines is relatively small. All you basically need is OODLES of RAM and enough disks to accomodate the Virtual machine with its OS, data and applications. Even the OODLES of RAM isn't significant these days as most desktops will have AT least 4GB RAM and may be as much as 16GB. A typical legacy application can run EASILY in most cases on a 512MB Virtual XP machine. --The way VM's work is too complex for this post but there ISN'T a relation of 1:1 between resources of HOST OS and Virtual Machine. The only thing the VM consumes a lot of is RAM - your 512MB RAM VM will use all of the 512mb. However virtual paging and Virtual I/O is done in a very different manner than that of the \"Real OS\".

In some cases you can actually get a VM to run at around 90 or even 95% of Native speed -- and considering XP systems are usually pretty OK that's good enough.

With the XP compatability feature in W7 there really isn't any reason after this release to continue supporting NEW 32 Bit OS'es any more. Once the Atom processor (used in a lot of Netbooks) is 64 bit enabled then W7 x-64 could even run on these as well.

Looks like MS have made sense in that this is a better route than to offer an \"XP Downgrade\" from W7.

(Note the XP compatability feature is a FREE add on to W7 which will become available later. I think you'll need a separate licensed copy of XP SP3 to use it however)
Cheers
jimbo

Acctually, you missed my point on it.

I wasn't actually referring to the entire XP being Virtualised within Windows, thats not a 32 and 64bit compatibility reasons .

The (main) reason they did the whole XPM thing was to keep organizations happy about XP compatibility with apps. (Allot of organizations are using outdated software/software that rarely gets updated, and for whatever reason is incompatible with Vista) go to www.withinwindows.com for a real indepth on it.

At the current moment (all Win7 beta's(and RC) and all Vista's) all have 32bit Virtualisation. Any application that is 32bit will go under it. This is why you can run ANY 32bit app on a 64bit OS. And this is why there is a duplicate version of 32bit and 64bit with slight modifications (to make them 32 and 64) in the OS.

If you have a 64bit system at the moment, take a look in Task Manager. And run a 32bit app (Firefox or Opera or something like that). You will notice that next to it, it says "*32". This means "This processor is running in 32bit mode". Which is separate to the rest of the system. This is why you can use 32bit apps in Vista and Win7. The "Virtualisation" in XP, was very half baked and did NOT work at all (pretty much). In all technicality, a 32bit app will never run in a 64bit OS. Only through Virtualisation are we able to do this. (the registers, memory maps and other things that are beyond me are VERY different)

Sorry if there was confusion caused from my original post.