Microsoft to Require 64-bit Processors

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."

Something's not right

[rob_squared]

Microsoft is breaking backward compatability?

Anyone have anything debunking this?

All future "processor releases"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone didn't proof read this - since when have Microsoft released processors?

Chief Big Heap has spoken

[jav1231]

First of all, yes this is probably a good move on their part. Yet, its not like they can dictate anything. Yes, they have a monopoly but there are cracks in it. There are alternatives now. The really ironic thing is they're talking up 64bit but they were the last to even have compatibility for it.

Re:Is this bad or good?

[Southpaw018]

It's more a matter of prodding an industry where "standard" computers still come with 256mb ram. Dell's current high end machines come with 512, and some manufacturers can and will sell you a computer with 128mb of ram. (I'm not Dell bashing - they're the only company I'll use if I'm not building it myself. Just saying.)

Anyhow. What I'm getting at is the industry has been somewhat sluggish to adopt new tech under pressure to keep costs down. The 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but many computers don't have them, and the only reason why is that it's not cost-effective for the industry giants to switch over. As for performance...well, you won't see much difference with a 64-bit processor, but that's not because they aren't better - that's because people haven't been writing new code for them due to slow adoption rates. Vicious circle and all that.

Re:Good move?

[cale]

"...yield even more of their marketshare to Linux."? Maybe. I don't know what you were thinking, but thats what I would like to throw out there.

In my IT department the thinking might go something like this:
Windows requires us to replace that moderately priced server we bought last year. Well, if are going to have to replace it, lets try running Linux on it and see if we can provide our services that way.

However, our guys tend to be more open minded than most corporate IT folks.

Re:Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone

[Anonymous Coward]

When the hell was the last time you had to use "edit.com" to edit a file or "sysedit" to adjust your system settings under windows xp??

If those were the only 2 16-bit apps you could find, then just delete them, they aren't likely required by the system to run, just there for teh sake of being there.

Seriously?

[CastrTroy]

There is no problems with linux pumping out binaries for x86, x86-64, PowerPC, ARM, and a multitude of other architectures. Why does windows only run on 1 type of processor? Wouldn't they have a much bigger market segment if the allowed you to run it on a larger variety of hardware? Microsoft used to have an Alpha version of NT. Did nobody want it? or was it just so bad that nobody could use it? This move will make more people shy away from upgrading their MS software. Software upgrades usually aren't *that* expensive, but if you have to upgrade your servers just to upgrade your software, then a lot less people will be doing it.

ReactOS an alternative for Companies?

[lightweave]

If you don't know what ReactOS is, it is a replacement for Windows which aims to get 100% binary compatible. http://www.reactos.org/ [reactos.org]
Just like Wine does on Linux, but with the advantage that there is no Linux underneath it. It is a fully working OS on it's own.

One of the initial motivations for this project was to brake this MS enforced cycle, and so far they made good progress. They are already capable of running some serious stuff like Unreal Tournament (Serious in terms of implementation not neccessarily for companies :) ). Of course there is a long way to go still, but since the aim is to stay binary compatible, if they progress as good as in teh last two years, then this could become a serious thread if it would be adopted by companies to avoid hardware changes when they don't even need them. And of course, since it is an Open Source OS you still have room for improvement and fixing of exploits that may be discovered. Which is more than you can expect from a Microsoft Windows.

Like we didn't see this coming

[Autonomous Crowhard]

One of the reasons for doing is this is to force people to upgrade.

Let's fgace facts, Longwait and Office 2**n have nothing compelling enough to warant upgrading. But this move ensures that you will not be able to find any 64 bit machines that don't have them on it (Even if you don't want them at all)

Plain and simple... It's their attempt at replicating Windows 95 all over again.

Re:Room to Make Demands

[level_headed_midwest]

Heh, you're seeing them in full-panic-attack mode. TCPA, DRM, new Office file formats, and now this is just exemplifying how MSFT knows they are losing ground. They are giving a huge last shot at lock-in with the DRM, file formats and getting people to buy a new server with Windows licenses before Linux gets to be way too good of a choice to simply ignore.

My prediction is that if TCPA/DRM/new Office 12 file formats fail to have market penetration, MSFT will take a HUGE hit in the next five years and lose their majority in ten.

Good for Microsoft,bad for WINE

[CdBee]

Recent news covered the maturing of the WINE platform for running Win32 binaries on x86 *nix operating systems

How ironic that just as we reach the point where there is a good chance of a Win32 binary running on WINE, the big move to Win64 applications begins in earnest.

No, I don't believe this is a prime or even a significant motivating factor.. it's just the way things are.

Exactly...

[Anonymous Coward]

But who seriously comes here expecting accuracy or objectivity. if it has anything at all to do with Microsoft (and even some articles that don't), the summary will be worded in such a way to take a slam at Microsoft.

This is largely, non-news, and has almost no effect on end users as this is talking about server software due out in the 2007-2009 timeframe (2-4 years from now).

It is all about the RAM...

[(H)elix1]

One of the things moving to the x86-64 cores get you is access to more RAM. I built a home system with 4x1024M sticks of RAM. With a 32 bit OS (like Win2K and WinXP in my case), you cannot access all 4G of RAM (easily). Windows reports back anywhere from 3.2-3.5G of RAM - in part due to the PCI devices mapping resources, etc.

With Win2k3-x86 and WinXP-64, most of the hoops (and startup switches) you use just go away. It just works. Same applied to Linux - moving to an A64 build just worked.

For server operations, more RAM is good. This is not as evil as it sounds.

Re:Is this bad or good?

[InsaneProcessor]

Actually WhenDoze does have 64 bit commercial support. I have been running XP64 for some time and it is quite stable. There are no real applications yet and probably won't be for some time.

Personaaly, I think 64 bit has a long way to go (many years) before the public really needs anything from it. It may even be 10 years away from being real.

The sad part is there is no killer software out there or on the horizon for M$ or anyone else. Stay with WhenDozeXP for the desktop. It is good for at least 10 more years.

Correct.

[Sycraft-fu]

XP-64 will no longer run DOS or Win16 programs. It has WOW32 (Windows on Windows 32 bit) to run 32-bit code, but no more WOW16. If you wish to run old DOS programs under it, you'll need a full-blown emulator. Personally I recommend the use of DOSBox, even if you are using 32-bit Windows, as it does a much better DOS emulation than what comes in XP. DOS programs require hardware access of the kind that cannot be given in a protected environment. XP doesn't emulate a whole lot of that so plenty won't run (it was mainly added to NT for business apps, not games) but DOSBox emulates the large majority of it.

Also note this is an OS limitation, not a processor limitation as far as I know. I believe the 64-bit processors have no problem stepping all the way back to 16-bit mode, it is just that XP-64 contains not provision to run 16-bit code.