Microsoft to Require 64-bit Processors 377
Nom du Keyboard writes "According to News.com Microsoft has said they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases. These include Exchange 12, Longhorn Server R2 and Small-Business Edition Longhorn Server among others. I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime."
Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good, and bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Off course people could simply return the software that don't work and the adoption rate will be slower then before...
Good for gamers, bad for companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this bad or good? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not really either. Technology progresses, new Windows requires latest processors... it's scarcely news at all.
What is interesting, though, is that there are still a lot of 32-bit processors around which are perfectly viable. Microsoft didn't absolutely require a 32-bit CPU until Windows '95; previous releases could always run in Standard or Real mode if you didn't happen to have the hardware to use 386 Enhanced. When that release came out in late 1995, hardly anyone was still running a 286. But when MS goes to pure 64-bit, there may well still be a lot of legacy Pentium IVs around running just fine. Maybe we'll be able to get these guys to consider alternatives at that point?
upgrade cycle? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Just what I thought. It's enough hassle to update a company full of PCs for a next Windows version. Next they will have to junk all their desktop hardware and not just update the Windows line, but also buy a sh*t load of new hardware. Hardware wendors will _love_ Microsoft for this move. I guess Dell will owe them one.
I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime. (Score:3, Insightful)
That should be we as in "we MS windows users" that have to bite this bullet thank you very much.
We as in "we people with high memory requirements" will need 64 bits because we actually need them.
Re:Is this bad or good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Digg.com did it again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its simply because no one used other processors to run Windows (Back when NT3/NT4 supported MIPS, Alpha, PPC..). The Alpha seemed (at the time) to be the second most-used platform for NT as it did have performance advantage over IA32, but ultimately, not enough software was released native for Alpha to make it a truly usable platform.
Fast forward to today and I don't really see a strong argument for releasing on multiple architectures. x86-64 provides a cost effective and fast platform. While other processors/architectures might be more suitable for a particular niche, the lack of binary drivers and applications would (I would believe) keep people from utilizing it (If I have to write a custom app anyways
Re:Updates for this quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe "rewrite" would be more accurate? If Microsoft could get a 64-bit version of Windows just by recompiling, they would never have bothered with 32-bit Windows NT on Alpha.
Re:Is this bad or good? (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like you resent that the industry isn't progressing to faster and bigger hardware, and focusing on bringing cost down. I'm actually happy with this; I'm doing the same things I was doing years ago (and I'm sure the same is true for many others), so why should I need a bigger and faster system for them? If Pentium (classic) or ever 486 systems were available at a price that reflected the performance difference with current P4s and Athlon64s, I'd buy those in a heartbeat.
As it is, I can't get a real cost advantage by buying slower hardware, but I can get lower power usage. Since I believe lower energy usage is the only realistic way to reduce pollution in the short term, I've done so; my main machine is a VIA EPIA (underclocked to 266 MHz), and I have a 800 MHz iBook G4 (downclocked to 600 MHz). Both of these perform the tasks I use them for just fine. Both of them have 256 MB RAM, but I could make do with half if I took the trouble to get smaller modules (which I won't).
I have no need for a machine that will execute more idle cycles per second, nor do I have a need for software that requires such a machine.