I'd settle for a x32/x64 OS release if x64 got a serious kick in the pants support wise as well.

However the longer x32 platforms are supported, the longer x64 will still be treated the way it is today. Almost like a problem child...

The typical end user dosen't care how many bits there are, as long as it works.

If they had more native x64 support for apps and devices and actually saw the resultant benefits derived from such, this would be enough to steer the markets toward a x64 minimum regardless of platform or device.

i think it should be x64 only personally, as stated above......its time to move on, how long can you flog a dead horse..??

especially considering the speed S/W is advancing, a 4gb allocation limit should be a thing of the past....

Originally Posted by matt0978

did u mean to say 64bit?

Yup - fixed and credited you with the fix - thanks for the sharp eyes.

Originally Posted by 8Dreams

yeah then we will have 128bit computers running 64 gb

I think that 128 bit wil be skipped for a jump directly to 256bit - makes more sense logically (but, then again, the hardware manufacturers are rarely logical).

Originally Posted by snives

I would not be shocked at all if it was 64bit only. Instead, I would be a little more put off by the idea that they are still wasting money working on hardware that will be very out dated. Already today it is probably nearing 50% of users have 64bit capable machines if not more, and it won't exactly be tomorow Win8 is released. Windows 7 was brought out quickly, more than likely to cover for Vista's failing sales and to recover their image on the market instead of getting further beaten on by Mac and other alternatives. I would not expect Windows 8 to be hitting the shelves for another 4 years from today at the earliest. At that point, 32bit hardware will be what... a decade out of date?

And as far as MS having just finally just 16bit, that is true. When however was the last 16bit operating system created by them? Dropping support is an entirely different concept than designing the core around. On another note, if 128bit tech is getting developed I hope MS doesn't waste time catching up. The Athlon64 series was released in 2003, and Windows XP x64 didn't release until April 2005. There is no way as large of a company as MS did not have access to the needed resources to be prepared in less than two years. They probably had prototypes available in 2001 or 2002 at the latest. If anything, they are to blame for the slow adoption of 64bit technology that even leads to us having to be curious about this kind of point.

Summed up : Windows 8 SHOULD be 64bit with compatability for 32bit code, and if it is on the market hopefully MS won't wait so long to begin 128bit (or whatever the next increment ends up being).

OK, first of all, let's look at something quickly.

With a 32bit OS it was easy to put support in for 16bit programs and what not - with a 64bit OS it will be just as easy - after all, I am running a 64bit OS with 32bit programs, no problem.

Secondly, although they dropped support for 16 bit programs actually more like 3 years ago (AFAICT you cannot run 16 bit apps in Vista natively) - but my last year comment was more of a joke than anything....

Finally, what you're saying makes sense - and it is reflected in the fact that there is no 32bit Windows Server 2008 R2 (which is based on the Windows 7 core, whereas Server 2008 was based on the Vista core).

Finally, 64bit processors have been around a lot longer than the Athlon - Supercomputers used them back in the 60s and the first 64bit processor was actually a PowerPC, and Remember the Nintendo 64 and Playstation 2? Both were 64bit processors as well. In addition, SUN launched the UltraSPARC line in the 90s as well.

Of the chip makers, Intel was already making 64bit processors (remember the Itanium?) in the late 90s, as was IBM (PowerPC) but the first of those aimed at the mainstream consumer is still the PowerPC, aka Apple Mac G5. AMD followed suit with the x86-64 and Intel finally trickled 64bit processors to the public in the Pentium line (although even the 32bit Pentium processors already supported a 64bit BUS path).

All in all, though, I have to agree - 64bit only is the best way to go.

Originally Posted by Azural

It needs to be 64 bit. Most of their sales come from pre-built machines anyway...and if any OEM is still selling computers with less than 2GB of RAM by then...well, they really shouldn't be.

64bit is not just about the amount of RAM _ contrary to popular belief, you get advantages from 64bit OS and programs even with only 2 GB 9or even less) of RAM.

Originally Posted by dinesh

It will come in both 32 & 64 bit. There are many pcs that can run onl 32bit OS. MS cant ignore such heavy bulk.

Oh yes they can. Even a 3 generation old Pentium 4 can be found with 64bit support (EM64T). By the time this comes out it will be as much as 6 generations old - "If you're running a computer that is 10 years old, keep your older OS" is what they will say - and what I will agree with.

Originally Posted by LFB

Why Microsoft will be so stupid for releasing a 64bits only OS?

They want to be in all markets... like Netbooks and cheap Laptops with low end Hardware... where 32bits systems fits perfectly... today and in the future...

Cheap laptops with low end hardware? By the time W8 comes around even IONs and other low power CPUs will be 64bit. Keeping a 32bit OS around at this point is pointless. I hope that you realize that my QuadCore 6600 is pretty cheap as it is - by the time W8 comes around this CPU will be selling for prices cheaper than you can buy a Pentium 4 2.6 GHz processor...both of which have EM64T support, by the way.

Originally Posted by dinesh

This is exactly what i meant in my previous post.

Originally Posted by BelmontSlayer

Most netbooks are running 32-bit processors and with their popularity constantly gaining, I can't see Microsoft not offering an x86 version.

I can - most netbooks *now* are offering 32bit processors. Let's see what 2010 has to offer - forget waiting until W8 is out - then consider this topic again.

Originally Posted by SmartEyeball

I'd settle for a x32/x64 OS release if x64 got a serious kick in the pants support wise as well.

However the longer x32 platforms are supported, the longer x64 will still be treated the way it is today. Almost like a problem child...

The typical end user dosen't care how many bits there are, as long as it works.

If they had more native x64 support for apps and devices and actually saw the resultant benefits derived from such, this would be enough to steer the markets toward a x64 minimum regardless of platform or device.

True that - too many programmers are stuck in their ways of single core processing and yet we have had Hyper threading for, what, 8 years now? It is one of the major fails of Vista - software coders who write device drivers simply put their nose in the air and said "*Sniff* We're not going to support this." Now, that is not the only cause of Vista's problems, but it was one of the loudest problems that a lot of people clamored about....

Originally Posted by 8ball

I think going 64-bit only would offer the potential to build a more refined OS.

Not necessarily - but hopefully this seemingly success story about to be played out in stores nationwide in hte next several months will.

Originally Posted by Avien

I think if they did another x86/64 OS it will be lacking. The OS will be unrefined due to the massive loss of technology due to the limits and the lacking code execution of x86 only processors. Again, I will keep stating my point until i get a valid argument. What makes you think any one who still uses an x86 processor only will even be able to run the next OS. I highly doubt anyone has a direct10+ or even a directx 9+ video card that is pci-e that bought an x86 processor only. These so called, people, would need to upgrade to even consider running the GUI or even get it to install. The video enhancements that will probably be in the new OS, will force people to upgrade their video card, which in the ends means a new PC, which i bet my life on will be x64. It is time MS stops holding the hands of the people who wants the best OS without upgrading their 5 year old computer. It is seriously compromising the OS. Windows 7 is great, but it could be a lot better if MS just focused on 64bit. It would probably be twice as fast if they didn't have to have all this floating point 64 bit crap and went true 64bit. 16bit is dead, it is about time 32bit gets the nail in the coffin as well.

There is one slightly major problem with your analysis - you (and I for a while) neglected to consider recycled computers for the poor and destitute countries of the world. If you build a new OS that cannot support those old PCs, those old 486s and original generation Pentiums, PIIs PIIIs, etc. then you're off base.

however, I think that M$ will do exactly that - write off 32bit OS and leave support only for 32bit executables just to make the masses happy. If your CPU cannot support the new OS _ well, you're either SOL or need to get an older OS, or go to Linux.

Originally Posted by diewas

Everyone has to move on at some point. It's like when people moved from VHS videos to DVDs. I think it will be a purely X64 only.

And there are still people out there using VHS and BetaMax players....

Originally Posted by skunksmash

i think it should be x64 only personally, as stated above......its time to move on, how long can you flog a dead horse..??

especially considering the speed S/W is advancing, a 4gb allocation limit should be a thing of the past....

A good read on all of this (and the source of most of my points relying in factual information) can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

You might be surprised - a lot of good reading there.