Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista

[Sabotage23]

Microsoft To Dump 32-Bit After Vista - Microsoft has used its annual hardware engineering conference to announce that Windows Vista and Server 2008 will be the last versions of Windows capable of booting on 32-bit CPUs such as Intel Pentium 4 and Core Duo.

Is the Intel C2D E4300 capable of 64 bit windows?

 

[Scali2]

Yes, all Core2 Duos are 64-bit... as are all Pentium Ds, and all Pentium 4s with a Prescott-core or newer.
Various Celeron Ds are also 64-bit.

In other words, Intel makes predominantly 64-bit CPUs, and has been doing so for years. The exceptions are mainly in the really low-budget market, and some of the older laptop chips (Pentium M/Core) that haven't entirely been phased out yet.

I've been running Windows XP x64 on my E6600 for about half a year now, and pretty happy with it.
My brother has been running it for well over a year on his Pentium D, works even better there. The Pentiums get a great speed boost from some 64-bit applications.

 

[NickM]

Are you certain about the Pressy's? My old box, that I gave my brother, had a 3.2E Pressy (first rev.), and to the best of my knowledge, was not 64 capable.

 

[Scali2]

Yes, I'm sure about the Prescott.
You can check with CPU-Z, it will list EM64T extensions.
The Prescott is an update of Northwood and basically had 3 major changes:
- 1 mb cache (later even 2 mb)
- 90 nm manufacturing instead of 130 nm
- 64-bit extensions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Perhaps yours was an early one, where it was not enabled yet, but the hardware has always been there (much like HyperThreading in Northwood).
All 2 mb models have it enabled, and also 1 mb models where the model number ends in 1, eg. 531.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Yes, I'm sure about the Prescott.
You can check with CPU-Z, it will list EM64T extensions.
The Prescott is an update of Northwood and basically had 3 major changes:
- 1 mb cache (later even 2 mb)
- 90 nm manufacturing instead of 130 nm
- 64-bit extensions

All Prescotts did have 64bit extensions, but they weren't enabled until later on. Pentium 4 models with a 0 or 5 as the last digit in the processor model number are not 64bit capable as the extension are not enabled. Similar to the Hyperthreading capability of ALL Northwoods.

List of Prescott (90nm/1MB) P4's that aren't 64bit capable -- http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showch...857983,858622,859180&familyID=1&culture=en-US

 

[compslckr]

they should have just made vista 64-bit only. by the time the next MS OS comes out there will probably be 128-bit CPU's. then they will release a 64-bit and a 128-bit edition, just like they did with 32 and 64-bit.

If you are still running 32-bit hardware you should be stuck with XP. 64-bit has been out for a really long time now, and If you have not upgraded hardware in the last 5 years you probably do not need to upgrade your OS.

the only reason MS bothered with a 32bit version is to sell a few more copies

 

[BinarySynapse]

they should have just made vista 64-bit only. by the time the next MS OS comes out there will probably be 128-bit CPU's. then they will release a 64-bit and a 128-bit edition, just like they did with 32 and 64-bit.

If you are still running 32-bit hardware you should be stuck with XP. 64-bit has been out for a really long time now, and If you have not upgraded hardware in the last 5 years you probably do not need to upgrade your OS.

the only reason MS bothered with a 32bit version is to sell a few more copies

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the 16-32bit transition over a decade ago, but it wasn't until 1995 that Windows required a 32bit processor to run on, but 32bit processors had been available since 1986 (the 80386). Even then there was a shit ton of 16bit code until 2001 wehn XP was release as the first completely 32bit version of Windows. (Mind you, I'm talking solely about consumer versions of Windows.)

And there are millions of 32bit only systems out there that are quite capable of running Vista. My sister in fact has one of those systems (a Sempron 2300+ with 512MB RAM). She uses Vista everyday with absolutely no problem. If MS had only made a 64bit version they would have cut themselves out of millions of dollars of potential sales. In a few years when the next version of Windows is release, then yeah, 32but only processors will be a dying breed and so old that they'll probably not be capable of running the new version very well. Hell XP will run on a Pentium downclocked to 8 mhz and 16MB of RAM, but it takes days to boot up .

 

[MrMike]

This was actually posted in late 2006 on the technet forums during a longhorn beta discussion by an official MS rep. This announcement makes me wonder if he wasn't supposed to say it then, heh.

I've ran Windows XP 64-bit since I purchased an Athlon 64 3500+ a few months after it was released and I run Vista x64 now.

 

[dracop]

You know I actually was unaware of this fact, that Core 2 Duo/Quad were native 64 bit. Thats really awesome; if I can go for Vista 64 for my next upgrade, it uses the quad cores more effectively AND it allows me to go past 2 GB of RAM, which I have wanted for ahwile now (I HATE Virtual Memory running off a Paging file; Id rather pay for the damn memory and do it clean).

 

[Scali2]

You know I actually was unaware of this fact, that Core 2 Duo/Quad were native 64 bit.

A lot of people are...
I suppose Intel is reluctant to market the 64-bit features, since they were developed by AMD.
At least with AMD, pretty much everyone knows that an Athlon64 is 64-bit.

 

[Vengance_01]

Thats nice, but M$ needs support from software developers and driver developers. Without there support I can see very bad things happening. Look at the current 64 bit driver support. Its next to nothing and ATM I see no benefits from 64bit. Show me real world tangible benefits ,then and only then will I switch.

 

[SLee]

The Microsoft announcement is actually that Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server OS, the same decision has not been made for the client side.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/18/on-64-bit-and-windows-client.aspx

 

[bbz_Ghost]

As if anyone can look upon this decision and what will come from it as a bad thing? I don't see it... it's all good, for all of us, even Joe Average, consumer that happens to own a computer.

Go figure...

 

[imzjustplayin]

Thats nice, but M$ needs support from software developers and driver developers. Without there support I can see very bad things happening. Look at the current 64 bit driver support. Its next to nothing and ATM I see no benefits from 64bit. Show me real world tangible benefits ,then and only then will I switch.

Can't go over 4GB of system ram and with programs getting more bloated as time goes on, you'll need that much ram. That said, more data is processed with a 64bit processor at a time than a 32bit, twice as much at that, assuming of course the application can take advantage of it. Also newer games are going to need more ram and so to do things like video editing and photoediting software so thats why we need 64bit.

 

[piako]

Thats nice, but M$ needs support from software developers and driver developers. Without there support I can see very bad things happening. Look at the current 64 bit driver support. Its next to nothing and ATM I see no benefits from 64bit. Show me real world tangible benefits ,then and only then will I switch.

Can't go over 4GB of system ram and with programs getting more bloated as time goes on, you'll need that much ram. That said, more data is processed with a 64bit processor at a time than a 32bit, twice as much at that, assuming of course the application can take advantage of it. Also newer games are going to need more ram and so to do things like video editing and photoediting software so thats why we need 64bit.

Yeah but it will have to be at least a few years before we see stamped on a game box "Minimum required memory: 3 GB." I wish now I would have bought XP 32 and not x64, for a number of reasons. Mostly application and driver support. The os is speedy though!

 

[imzjustplayin]

Yeah but it will have to be at least a few years before we see stamped on a game box "Minimum required memory: 3 GB." I wish now I would have bought XP 32 and not x64, for a number of reasons. Mostly application and driver support. The os is speedy though!

So you're saying you don't have a 32bit copy of XP? Man that sucks... Too bad there hasn't been very much support for XP 64 like there should be..

 

[JDAdams]

I wish now I would have bought XP 32 and not x64, for a number of reasons. Mostly application and driver support. The os is speedy though!

Too bad there hasn't been very much support for XP 64 like there should be..

I use x64 exclusively on this PC - what have you guys got problems with? The only issue I've had is that Aquamark doesn't run, everything else works fine in terms of drivers and apps. You get the odd 16-bit installer or MSI file that needs to be edited to install, but I've not found anything much I can't run.

 

[Scali2]

I run into very little problems myself, with Windows XP x64.
I'd say Windows XP x64 is more compatible with legacy applications than Vista (either x86 or x64).

 

[Angelus897]

I'm glad that Microsoft is pushing 64-bit. Once programmers start compiling more 64-bit apps, there will actually be a reason to run an x64 OS.

PS: I'm pretty sure that only the Prescott Es had x64. I know my Prescott doesn't have it.

 

[∞Velocitymaster∞]

The reason I'm still running 32bit windows because most games aren't 64 bit yet, I just recently got the QX6700 which is fully a 64bit cpu, later next year or another 2 years there will be better drivers and more 64bit games.
Looks like my hardware is some what ahead

 

[robberbaron]

I'm glad that Microsoft is pushing 64-bit. Once programmers start compiling more 64-bit apps, there will actually be a reason to run an x64 OS.

PS: I'm pretty sure that only the Prescott Es had x64. I know my Prescott doesn't have it.

It was prescott "F" that first had it. E was the first prescott.

 

[MrWizard6600]

Can't go over 4GB of system ram and with programs getting more bloated as time goes on, you'll need that much ram. That said, more data is processed with a 64bit processor at a time than a 32bit, twice as much at that, assuming of course the application can take advantage of it. Also newer games are going to need more ram and so to do things like video editing and photoediting software so thats why we need 64bit.

Correct me if im wrong, but a 64bit cpu is a cpu which has a 64bit memory bus, where each bit is a place value, not just and extra value, meaning a 64bit bus is way more then twice as powerful then a 32 bit one. A 32bit memory bus is capible of accessing 4.29e9 (2^32) address, where as a 64bit bit bus is capible of accessing 1.84e19 (2^64) addresses. 1.84e19 is a whole lot more then 4.29e9.

It is possible to cram two 32 bit operations on one 64 bit bus but that would require some encryption and decryption on the memory controllers part at the least, and radically changed ram designs at worst. I suspect we wont see the abillity to cram two 32 bit operations on one 64bit bus, and that all 64bit cpus today are formatting read/write requests from the ram as: 000000000000000000000000000000001010010011010110110110110011011

I don't believe there are any programs that are fully capible of taking such an advantage, and I remember some MS engineers complaining that Intels EMT64 wasnt fully up to par (mind you it could just be senseless ramblings, you get into some pretty complicated stuff and I think ultimatly it depends on if the chipset supports EMT64, rather then the CPU, so perhalps this ms guy was just complaining about the chipset) with AMDs 64bit technologies.

Anyways, I'll admit I'm a fair bit out of my league here, I'm sorta putting two and two together a couple times in this post, so I might be way off, there are probibly those in this forum who know alot more then me about the subject.

 

[Scali2]

The reason I'm still running 32bit windows because most games aren't 64 bit yet

Some games are though (HalfLife2 and Far Cry for example, especially Far Cry is great, it's a lot more detailed in 64-bit).
And I've been able to run pretty much all modern games in x64 aswell, so I don't see why you'd still run a 32-bit Windows
Sure, I have a dual-boot with a 32-bit copy of XP just-in-case, but I don't really need it for gaming.

 

[Scali2]

Correct me if im wrong, but a 64bit cpu is a cpu which has a 64bit memory bus, where each bit is a place value, not just and extra value, meaning a 64bit bus is way more then twice as powerful then a 32 bit one. A 32bit memory bus is capible of accessing 4.29e9 (2^32) address, where as a 64bit bit bus is capible of accessing 1.84e19 (2^64) addresses. 1.84e19 is a whole lot more then 4.29e9.

But 64-bit is twice as many bits as 32-bit.
Anyway, it's not relevant, because the bus has been 64-bit even since the first Pentium. You don't gain anything there.

It is possible to cram two 32 bit operations on one 64 bit bus but that would require some encryption and decryption on the memory controllers part at the least, and radically changed ram designs at worst. I suspect we wont see the abillity to cram two 32 bit operations on one 64bit bus, and that all 64bit cpus today are formatting read/write requests from the ram as: 000000000000000000000000000000001010010011010110110110110011011

Actually, since the very first Pentium, they already used the 64-bit bus to load two 32-bit values at a time. Ofcourse you were limited by locality... You can't just load two 32-bit values from completely different places in memory.

I don't believe there are any programs that are fully capible of taking such an advantage, and I remember some MS engineers complaining that Intels EMT64 wasnt fully up to par (mind you it could just be senseless ramblings, you get into some pretty complicated stuff and I think ultimatly it depends on if the chipset supports EMT64, rather then the CPU, so perhalps this ms guy was just complaining about the chipset) with AMDs 64bit technologies.

Must be senseless ramblings, because benchmarks all over the net show that Intel CPUs get a boost in various 64-bit applications. Sometimes more than AMD, sometimes less, just like the two trade places in 32-bit. But on average they're pretty well-matched.
In fact, the Pentium D often gets the biggest boosts overall.

In my own code I noticed that the Athlons are sometimes limited by their poor cache in 64-bit. The core could run faster, but you can't get the data in and out quickly enough. The Pentiums and Core2's have larger and faster caches, so they are able to gain more from 64-bit. In my code the Athlon seemed to be pretty much stressed to the max in 32-bit, so it didn't gain anything, in fact, it ran a smidge slower in 64-bit.
So my personal impression is that Intel has the better 64-bit technology. AMD needs to solve some bottlenecks in their architecture.

 

[BillParrish]

This is not any great susprise. By Vista EOL we will probally (hopefully) all be runnning Linux anyway. The first thing I programmed on was an 8088 which had 8bit instructions and had just been released making the previous 4 bit processor obsolete. I remember the professor gushing that in 5 years all the traffic lights would be computer controlled and there would be no waiting for unnecessary red lights. Yea, right.

I have noticed the trasnistions getting bumpier and bumpier, XP64 was the biggest buying mistake I have have made in a long time. Hopefully during the life of Vista MS can figure 64 bit coding out, there is little to convince me at the moment they have a clue. (64 bit code should be learner and faster, I dont see it. )

Bad 64 bit code < good 32 bit code etc. And based on the amount of windows updates and service packs I leave it to you to decide how well MS writes code.


However this will be a great opportunity for someone to write "the next great app" in native 64bit code that will scream on the 64bit platforms and become filthy rich. (Which he/she will deserve. )

So my personal impression is that Intel has the better 64-bit technology. AMD needs to solve some bottlenecks in their architecture.

I dont dispute the above at all but just find it very ironic since Intel had to license 64bit technology (the instruction set) from AMD. Would be funny if AMD refused to renew the license.

 

[Scali2]

This is not any great susprise. By Vista EOL we will probally (hopefully) all be runnning Linux anyway.

As a Direct3D-developer, I don't share your sympathies at all.
Until linux gets its act together and produces up-to-date APIs and proper driver support from all big vendors, linux is absolutely no option for me. Even if I were to develop for OpenGL instead of Direct3D (which obviously is not a very attractive option at the moment, where is the answer to DX10?), it would still run faster and with less hassle on most Windows systems.

(64 bit code should be learner and faster, I dont see it. )

Really? How do you figure that, when the instruction encoding for 64-bit is larger, and certain data has to be converted from 32-bit to 64-bit (eg pointers)?
And the processors themselves haven't really changed much, except for some extra registers, but because of register renaming introduced in the Pentium Pro, this really isn't all that much of an improvement anymore (probaby why Intel never bothered to extend the number of registers).

Bad 64 bit code < good 32 bit code etc. And based on the amount of windows updates and service packs I leave it to you to decide how well MS writes code.

As if the quality of code is related to it being 32-bit or 64-bit? In many cases it's the exact same code, just recompiled to a different target (and the Microsoft compiler has had 64-bit warnings for years, so most software has probably been fixed well before it was ever compiled to 64-bit. Not something I've ever seen in gcc).
And their 32-bit code got them to where they are now... So how will 64-bit suddenly make everyone turn to linux, when in 32-bit linux obviously was nowhere?

 

[InorganicMatter]

Yeah but it will have to be at least a few years before we see stamped on a game box "Minimum required memory: 3 GB."

I could make a Battlefield 2142 joke right here, but will refrain.

 

[Scali2]

I dont dispute the above at all but just find it very ironic since Intel had to license 64bit technology (the instruction set) from AMD. Would be funny if AMD refused to renew the license.

AMD can do no such thing.
Part of the x86 license from Intel is that Intel will automatically be licensed to use any extensions made to the x86-architecture.
So if AMD refused to renew the license, it's no more x86 for AMD. That would indeed be funny.

 

[crewzen]

As far as I am concerned they can drop the old compat xx86 crap and start a new with a good OS with the 64 bit or jump up to 128 bit OS and do it right now. Then in two or three years there will be something that works fasts and is not a monster size beast.


The oversized OS's that MS is making are just a bunch of crap. MS go back to the drawing boards and start over with the next gen OS.

I'm tired of all these upgrades.


Trouble with Windows is that it is not an OS anymore. It's a catch all program.

Go back to making just the OS. Small and quick. Let the other vendors make the programs work and run like they want them to, Windows is getting tired.

Put it to sleep.

 

[∞Velocitymaster∞]

Some games are though (HalfLife2 and Far Cry for example, especially Far Cry is great, it's a lot more detailed in 64-bit).
And I've been able to run pretty much all modern games in x64 aswell, so I don't see why you'd still run a 32-bit Windows
Sure, I have a dual-boot with a 32-bit copy of XP just-in-case, but I don't really need it for gaming.

I'm thinking of getting 64bit OS, will be Vista of course to run my DX10 games later.
Will also run my current 32bit XP .

Is 64bit system backward compatible with most every day use programs?
Meaning if the program is written in 32 bit will work fine on 64bit? Don't matter if that program will not take advantage of the 64 bit, as long as it can run fine. Examples.., messenger programs, web browsers, multimedia software, DVD shrink and other free ware programs.

 

[Scali2]

Trouble with Windows is that it is not an OS anymore. It's a catch all program.

Go back to making just the OS. Small and quick. Let the other vendors make the programs work and run like they want them to, Windows is getting tired.

Put it to sleep.

Thing is that the market demands a catch-all program. Both Microsoft and Apple put in all sorts of utilities, and they are the most popular solutions. I think there's no way back.
I myself don't even want to go back to a time where I had to select and buy my own media players, email clients, browsers etc. I can only imagine that for a lot of people using a computer now, having to select and install their own software would simply be too hard for them.

Heck, I use FreeBSD for my servers, but although I've tried using it on the desktop, I hated it. Partly because there's so many utilities to choose from, that all are pretty much the same... And even there you see a movement towards 'catch-all', like with KDE for example. KDE alse comes with a media player, email client, browser, word processor etc etc. In a way I actually like that... I just throw on KDE and I have a reasonably working desktop... Then I just replace tools if they don't meet my demands, but at least I have something to start from. Starting from scratch just takes too much time and research... At least most of the software is free... Imagine having to pay for everything...

 

[Scali2]

Is 64bit system backward compatible with most every day use programs?
Meaning if the program is written in 32 bit will work fine on 64bit? Don't matter if that program will not take advantage of the 64 bit, as long as it can run fine. Examples.., messenger programs, web browsers, multimedia software, DVD shrink and other free ware programs.

Ofcourse it does. The strength of the Intel/Microsoft-combination has always been backward compatibility. So obviously Microsoft made sure you have a completely functional 32-bit environment inside your 64-bit OS. Pretty much exactly like you had DOS/Win16 support in all 32-bit versions of Windows (although the 16-bit support is dropped from the 64-bit OSes).
There are always exceptions ofcourse... But even the 32-bit version of Vista doesn't run all 32-bit applications properly.
I've found Windows XP x64 to be more compatible than Vista x64 or even Vista x86. But ofcourse it's not as future-proof as Vista is... There won't be DX10-support.

 

[Angelus897]

I've found Windows XP x64 to be more compatible than Vista x64 or even Vista x86. But ofcourse it's not as future-proof as Vista is... There won't be DX10-support.

I haven't found any compatibility issues with my x86 copy of Vista. Don't know about x64 though. My problem is the fact that it's a system hog and that it's gaming performance is lacking, to say the least.

 

[∞Velocitymaster∞]

Looks like we just have to wait for better programs and drivers for Vista 32 and 64. Hardware wise, seems that software vendors have some catching up to do, since hardware is going at very fast paste, "cpu's and GPU's"

It's true Vista is a hog for most system's, even high-end ones, my XP starts up with 182mb with some 3rd part programs running at startup, unlike Vista there is so many default processes and fucking services running.
I try the last Vista beta in Jan, I said no for now on my current system.
Once I get my new rig I will surly run Vista for the upcoming DX10 games, also planning to go for 4gigs, then it's memory consumption will not really be an issue then. I will dual boot with my current copy of 32bit XPpro

 

[BillParrish]

having to select and install their own software would simply be too hard for them.

ahh yes, thats the ticket, MicoSoft knows whats best for us. No worries.

 

[Martyr]

I haven't found any compatibility issues with my x86 copy of Vista. Don't know about x64 though. My problem is the fact that it's a system hog and that it's gaming performance is lacking, to say the least.

its DESIGNED to be a system hog. instead of having 95% of your ram just siting there, vista uses it to preload commonly used aps and data so its there for you faster. and when a game or something needs it, then it gives it back.


vista is different from xp and previous versions of windows in that it is helping aps by using alot of ram, instead of fighting with aps over ram.

 

[Scali2]

ahh yes, thats the ticket, MicoSoft knows whats best for us. No worries.

That's not the point.
The point is that a lot of people DON'T know.
My dad can browse the web and send email, but he doesn't have a clue what a browser or email client is. Let alone that he would be able to install and configure one.
He knows what icons to click, they just have to be there, no hassle.

 

[imzjustplayin]

its DESIGNED to be a system hog. instead of having 95&#37; of your ram just siting there, vista uses it to preload commonly used aps and data so its there for you faster. and when a game or something needs it, then it gives it back.


vista is different from xp and previous versions of windows in that it is helping aps by using alot of ram, instead of fighting with aps over ram.

no. Once again, I have to explain to people such as yourself that prefetch does NOT account for the initial 512MB of additional ram being used by vista.

In PLAIN ENGLISH, you CANNOT install vista on a machine with less than 512MB of ram, and NO the ram being used by vista before 512MB is NOT prefetch data, it's the bloated kernel containing all the DRM hooks and other such nonsense.

If you have a system with 1GB of ram, only 512MB will be available to applications, the rest is being consumed by the pig of an OS that is vista. XP is better but that doesn't mean it too isn't bloated as you can't run XP with less than 128MB of ram (comfortably), it too has a bloated kernel. For XP the kernel is around 40MB while for vista I've seen it around 256MB, just for the damned kernel.

 

[Scali2]

In PLAIN ENGLISH, you CANNOT install vista on a machine with less than 512MB of ram, and NO the ram being used by vista before 512MB is NOT prefetch data, it's the bloated kernel containing all the DRM hooks and other such nonsense.

Yes, and Windows XP required about 200 mb, and Windows 2000 about 120 mb, Windows NT required about 40 mb etc... I could go all the way back to DOS, which you could run in about 50 kb or so.
Why do we keep having the same discussion over and over again?

 

[bbz_Ghost]

no. Once again, I have to explain to people such as yourself that prefetch does NOT account for the initial 512MB of additional ram being used by vista.

In PLAIN ENGLISH, you CANNOT install vista on a machine with less than 512MB of ram, and NO the ram being used by vista before 512MB is NOT prefetch data, it's the bloated kernel containing all the DRM hooks and other such nonsense.

If you have a system with 1GB of ram, only 512MB will be available to applications, the rest is being consumed by the pig of an OS that is vista. XP is better but that doesn't mean it too isn't bloated as you can't run XP with less than 128MB of ram (comfortably), it too has a bloated kernel. For XP the kernel is around 40MB while for vista I've seen it around 256MB, just for the damned kernel.

That middle paragraph there with the DRM BS is without a doubt the dumbest and most absolutely irresponsible and plain stupid commentary I've seen yet in this thread and in the past few weeks when the DRM BS seemed to have died down as more people came to realize it's Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (had to spell it out, not because you can't comprehend it but apparently this forum now supports censorship, go figure) and always has been.

BTW, I've got Vista installed on a machine with 256MB of RAM right now, go figure. vLite ftw! So never say never, never say can't... cause you'll be wrong on both counts.

Vista tunes itself to whatever amount of RAM you have installed, period, end of story, finito, done, stick a fork in the stupid people.

Besides, when I have 512MB in that test box and I install Vista on it (Home Premium) for testing, post-installation after 5 boots of the machine Vista consumes 295MB of RAM at the Desktop as noted by Task Manager - so much for your 512MB theory. "YOU SANK MY BATTLESHIP!!!"

Bleh... and here I was thinking the Vista bashing was over and done with. Guess I was wrong... and so were a lot of others...