Instead of Vista why not push the 64 bit version of XP?

GoHack

Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
824
You know we've aleady got the next generation OS over XP available now. That's the 64 bit version of XP, or simple x64 for short.

Granted, only people w/64 bit processors can use it, but figure, Vista is going to require a system upgrade anyway, at least w/the graphics. Granted Vista is going to be available in both 32 and 64 bit, but by the time it comes out, a good precentage of people may have 64 bit processors by then. You can figure that all new OEM systems that ship w/Vista will be 64 bit.

Other than driver support, mainly to do w/printers, x64 works great.

Why not hold off w/Vista, and get it totally fixed once and for all, while in the mean time, start really pushing x64?

It is now just about one year since x64's release, and figure, w/all the talk, that it'll be another year before Vista will come out. That's two years of profits that Microsoft could of been making if they had really started pushing x64. They keep talking about a new OS every two years already.

X64 is a lot closer to Vista than XP is, due to x64 and Vista sharing the same core, that being Windows 2003.

I do wonder why Microsoft even came out w/x64, since they aren't pushing it at all.

This is all just a thought.
 
I may be wrong on this, but Vista doesn't share a core with anything...that's why it's being pushed. I don't think XP64 and Vista are any more closely related than XP32 and Vista. You're also missing some larger areas of compatibility problems with XP64. Gamers have had a tough time, for one example. The reasoning why Microsoft came out with XP64 is somewhat a proof of concept. It's a teaser for now, to get driver writers and application developers coding for a 64 bit OS.
 
djnes said:
I may be wrong on this, but Vista doesn't share a core with anything...that's why it's being pushed. I don't think XP64 and Vista are any more closely related than XP32 and Vista. You're also missing some larger areas of compatibility problems with XP64. Gamers have had a tough time, for one example. The reasoning why Microsoft came out with XP64 is somewhat a proof of concept. It's a teaser for now, to get driver writers and application developers coding for a 64 bit OS.

Exactly.

It still entertains me that MS doesn't have a version of WSUS that they support on Server 2003 x64 although it serves patches for the x64 platforms (Although WSUS 3.0 to be released later this year will finally fix that). If you have all x64 supporting hardware with Windows Server 2003 x64 installed, your only MS supported WSUS option is to run Virtual Server R2 x64 hosting an instance of Windows Server 2003 x32 that has WSUS installed to keep them patched up to date.

Vista and Longhorn will share core code. Windows Server 2003 doesn't have anything at all like the Vista security subsystem for execution with minimum required privledges. The display interface for Vista is also rewritten from the ground up.
 
TheGamerZ said:
Well, I'd hope so since Vista is Longhorn.

I've been school'ed now. Oh wait. Not exactly. :)

Longhorn is still the code name for shared code base, client and server versions.

From MS "For more information on the "Longhorn" client, now known as Microsoft Windows Vista"

Since there is now only one Longhorn project still running ("Longhorn" server, still no official MS product name yet), it is fairly common in discussions to drop the term "server" since that term is no longer needed to differentiate between the two projects.
 
XP64 was a marketing ploy to sell new copies of the OS based on a marketing ploy by AMD and Intel. No one needs a 64 bit CPU, and the 64 bit OS is not worth the driver headaches because there is a minimal if any speed increase for 99% of users.
 
Don't know much about the desktop, but it looks like on the server side Microsoft is going to be pushing 64bit platforms. The next version of Exchange will run only on 64bit systems.

I would think the issue with the x64 version of XP is that there aren't enough apps yet that would take advantage of it.
 
DistributedBen said:
I would think the issue with the x64 version of XP is that there aren't enough apps yet that would take advantage of it.
That's a very big reason...and why I called it a proof of concept release.
 
I suppose Vista 32-bit would be very much like Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 32-bit and Windows Vista 64-bit would be very much like Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 x64.

WHy doesn't Microsoft release a 32-bit workstation version of Windows with the NT 5.2 kernel? If Vista is going to be delayed, why not make the desktop version use the most up to date kernel just as the 32-bit server edition does?
 
Nobody needs Vista. MS are simply doing it so the ignorant masses will run out and buy it because they think it will be better. The good thing about Windows is it runs the apps you want. Those applications won't change. Quite frankly if MS were serious about making a better operating system they'd have them come out of the box with things like the quick start bar enabled and having windows explorer in it, control panel would be expanded and they'd have multiple desktops. Realistically, I'm using the same user interface I did in Windows 95 and the underpinnings are mostly Windows 2000. Rewriting everything is just a waste of time and money.
 
NulloModo said:
XP64 was a marketing ploy to sell new copies of the OS based on a marketing ploy by AMD and Intel. No one needs a 64 bit CPU, and the 64 bit OS is not worth the driver headaches because there is a minimal if any speed increase for 99% of users.

Sell? They gave it away. What exactly was the profit motive again?
 
No, applications changing are just fine. The whole point of an operating system is to run those applications. Changing an OS isn't going to change them at all though. You can run your CS on 2000 or XP and it will still be the same application. You'll then be able to run it on Vista and it'll still be the same application although your system will run slower if at all on the same hardware, MS will have spent billions of dollars and they'll have suckered you into giving them another 200 bucks for their rediculous monopoly profit margins.
 
general said:
No, applications changing are just fine. The whole point of an operating system is to run those applications. Changing an OS isn't going to change them at all though. You can run your CS on 2000 or XP and it will still be the same application. You'll then be able to run it on Vista and it'll still be the same application although your system will run slower if at all on the same hardware, MS will have spent billions of dollars and they'll have suckered you into giving them another 200 bucks for their rediculous monopoly profit margins.

Operating systems can change and get better. I could run the Apps I wanted on Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Me, and now on XP, but XP is definately a hell of a lot more stable than the previous releases, and it looks better too, plus things added like better plug and play support (no more fiddling with .inf, .ini, or .bat files, no IRQ drama), networking support got much better, NTFS is far superior to FAT16 and FAT32 (don't have to partition your drive to reduce block size anymore), etc. Plus, it also looks a lot better.

Vista should be even more stable, has a more attractive user interface, introduces true widget support, support for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, brings Windows closer to or even exceeding OSX.

While looks and toys might not be everything, they do add to the overall user experience. If stability and running the apps you need was all that mattered we'd all be running command line BSD or Solaris.
 
Back
Top