• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Windows 8 x64 only?


SmartEyeball

No. 14
Team Member
VIP Member
Pro User
Posts
502
#21
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.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Vanilla 8 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    SmartEyeball Custom Systems
    CPU
    Intel 3770K @4.8ghz
    Motherboard
    ASUS P8Z77 WS
    Memory
    16GB G.Skill Trident 2666mhz
    Graphics Card(s)
    3x Gigabyte GTX 670 OC WindForce SLI
    Sound Card
    SB X-FI Surround 5.1 PRO USB + ATH-AD900 Headphones
    Monitor(s) Displays
    x3 Dell U2410 / 58" Samsung / "40 Sony
    Screen Resolution
    5760*1200/1920*1200 / 1920*1080
    Hard Drives
    2x Intel 520 240GB * Crucial M4 128GB * 2x Samsung F3 1TB (RAID 0) * 2x WD Caviar Blacks 2TB (RAID 0)
    PSU
    Corsair AX1200
    Case
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Cooling
    Noctua NH-D14
    Keyboard
    Topre Realforce // Ducky Shine MX Black // Filco Ninja TKL
    Mouse
    Razer Imperator + Thermaltake Theron
    Other Info
    Laptop Specs: Clevo Sager P170HM // 17.3 Matte 1920x1200 // i7 2720QM // 8GB 1333mhz // Dedicated GTX 485M // 240GB Intel 520 + 750GB + Blu-Ray // Samsung Story 2TB USB 3.0 // NexStar USB 3.0 enclosure 500GB

8ball

New Member
Posts
4
#22
I think going 64-bit only would offer the potential to build a more refined OS.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1
    System Manufacturer/Model
    IBM / Lenovo ThinkPad T60p 8743
    CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 / 2.0 GHz
    Motherboard
    IBM / Lenovo
    Memory
    2 GB DDR2 667 MHz
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Mobility FireGL V5250
    Sound Card
    ADI SoundMAX HD
    Monitor(s) Displays
    LG 15.4" FlexView
    Screen Resolution
    1680 x 1050 ( WSXGA+ )
    Hard Drives
    2x WD500BEVT ( 1 TB )
    PSU
    9-cell Lithium Ion
    Case
    Notebook
    Cooling
    TPFanControl v0.62
    Keyboard
    Chicony
    Mouse
    IBM Optical USB
    Internet Speed
    24 Mbps

Avien

Member
Member
Tennessee

Posts
18
#23
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.
 

My Computer

Diewas

Member
Member
#24
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.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro X64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom
    CPU
    AMD FX 8350 - 8 Core
    Motherboard
    Asus M5A99X EVO
    Memory
    16GB DDR3 ~ 1600MHZ
    Graphics Card(s)
    Nvidia Geforce 560Ti
    Sound Card
    Asus Xonar DGX
    Monitor(s) Displays
    2 X 24"
    Screen Resolution
    1920 X 1080
    Hard Drives
    2 X 1TB HDD
    60GB SSD
    PSU
    Corsair 600W
    Case
    NZXT Phantom
    Cooling
    Standard
    Keyboard
    Corsair Gaming Keyboard
    Mouse
    Logitech
    Internet Speed
    8MB
    Browser
    Chrome

skunksmash

Member
Member
England

Posts
15
#25
i think it should be x64 only personally, as stated above......its time to move on, how long can you flog a dead horse..??:p

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

My Computer

johngalt

Antidisestablishmentarianist
VIP Member
Member
3rd Rock

Posts
48
#26
did u mean to say 64bit?
Yup - fixed and credited you with the fix - thanks for the sharp eyes.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is exactly what i meant in my previous post.
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.

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....


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.

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.

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....

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

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.
 

My Computers

System One System Two

  • OS
    Windows 10 Pro X64 Insider Preview (Skip Ahead) latest build
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    The Beast Model V (homebrew)
    CPU
    Core i7 965 EE @3.6 GHz
    Motherboard
    eVGA X58 Classified 3 (141-GT-E770-A1)
    Memory
    3 * Mushkin 998981 Redline Enhanced triple channel DDR3 4 GB CL7 DDR3 1600 MHz (PC3-12800)
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA GeForce GTX 970 SSC ACX 2.0 (04G-P4-3979-KB)
    Sound Card
    Realtek HD Audio (onboard)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    2 * Lenovo LT2323pwA Widescreeen
    Screen Resolution
    2 @ 1920 * 1080
    Hard Drives
    SanDisk Ultra SDSSDHII-960G-G25 960 GB SATA III SSD (System)
    Crucial MX100 CT256MX100SSD1 256GB SATA III SSD (User Tree)
    2 * Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA II Mech. HD
    Seagate ST1500DL001-9VT15L Barracuda 7200.12 1.5 TB S
    PSU
    Thermaltake Black Widow TX TR2 850W 80+ Bronze Semi-Mod ATX
    Case
    ThermalTake Level 10 GT (Black)
    Cooling
    Corsair H100 (CPU, dual 140 mm fans on radiator) + Air (2 * 210 mm + 3 * 120mm fans)
    Keyboard
    Logitech G15 Keyboard (gen 2)
    Mouse
    Logitech MX Master (shared)
    Internet Speed
    AT&T Lightspeed Gigabit duplex
    Browser
    Nightly|Chrome|Canary|Edge+ (Chromium)|Edge
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender + MB 3
  • PC2
    Lenovo ThinkPad E545

Azural

Member
Member
Posts
12
#27
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.
Oh, I know that. But I believe the lowest amount of RAM 7 x64 will install on is 2GB. Which I am running it on.
 

My Computer

dinesh

Wonder Boy
Team Member
VIP Member
Pro User
India

Posts
285
#29

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro 64 Bit
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Samsung NP530U4B-S02
    CPU
    Intel Core i5 2467M @ 1.60GHz
    Motherboard
    SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH (CPU
    Memory
    6.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 665MHz (9-9-9-24)
    Graphics Card(s)
    1024MB ATI AMD Radeon HD 7500M/7600M Series (Samsung)
    Sound Card
    Realtek High Definition Audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Generic PnP Monitor (
    Screen Resolution
    [email protected]
    Hard Drives
    931GB SAMSUNG HN-M101MBB (SATA)
    Internet Speed
    1 MBPS
#30
I can imagine Microsoft going x64 only. Rarely anyone uses 16-bit programs anymore, and 32-bit programs are still usable in x64. For anyone who has a x86 processor or less than 2 gigs of ram, they should preferably start to go x64. And hopefully, the economy will be much better in 2010 or 2011. Also, going 64-bit will hopefully promote the creation and development of 128-bit or 256-bit.

The only downside of this is if 32-bit people want to stay 32-bit and Apple is willing to stay 32-bit, then people will switch to Apple.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Toshiba Satellite M205-S4806
    CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo T5450
    Memory
    4 GB
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1
    Screen Resolution
    1280x800

SmartEyeball

No. 14
Team Member
VIP Member
Pro User
Posts
502
#31
The only downside of this is if 32-bit people want to stay 32-bit and Apple is willing to stay 32-bit, then people will switch to Apple.

Then they would be more than welcome to stay living in the past and allow the rest of the world to move on :)
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Vanilla 8 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    SmartEyeball Custom Systems
    CPU
    Intel 3770K @4.8ghz
    Motherboard
    ASUS P8Z77 WS
    Memory
    16GB G.Skill Trident 2666mhz
    Graphics Card(s)
    3x Gigabyte GTX 670 OC WindForce SLI
    Sound Card
    SB X-FI Surround 5.1 PRO USB + ATH-AD900 Headphones
    Monitor(s) Displays
    x3 Dell U2410 / 58" Samsung / "40 Sony
    Screen Resolution
    5760*1200/1920*1200 / 1920*1080
    Hard Drives
    2x Intel 520 240GB * Crucial M4 128GB * 2x Samsung F3 1TB (RAID 0) * 2x WD Caviar Blacks 2TB (RAID 0)
    PSU
    Corsair AX1200
    Case
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Cooling
    Noctua NH-D14
    Keyboard
    Topre Realforce // Ducky Shine MX Black // Filco Ninja TKL
    Mouse
    Razer Imperator + Thermaltake Theron
    Other Info
    Laptop Specs: Clevo Sager P170HM // 17.3 Matte 1920x1200 // i7 2720QM // 8GB 1333mhz // Dedicated GTX 485M // 240GB Intel 520 + 750GB + Blu-Ray // Samsung Story 2TB USB 3.0 // NexStar USB 3.0 enclosure 500GB

Zidane24

Member
Member
North Carolina, US

Posts
104
#33
if so happens micro soft will get less selling market i suppose.............
Your thinking of the market RIGHT NOW...This is the best decision that they could make...part of being a business and remaining a competivite one is innovation...Apple already has embraced x64-bit (again...) and their market share didn't nose dive when first round intel macs running x86 weren't able to go to upcoming Snow Leopard. You can't make every body happy...hell if people's argument's about x86 here were valid than technology itself would not even exist...progress and change has to occur: it is a fact of life and if you want to remain with the times than that is your only choice
 

My Computer

fakeasdf

Member
Member
Posts
10
#34
sajarcot895 said:
The only downside of this is if 32-bit people want to stay 32-bit and Apple is willing to stay 32-bit, then people will switch to Apple.
Yeah... Apple already went solely x64. They dropped support for 32 bit in their latest release of OS X. On top of that, Microsoft will totally drop support for 32 bit in their next OS release. This was one of the main reasons they started pushing VM's with XP on it... or XPM. They want to get people's 20 year old apps running in a VM so they can drag their VM with them the next 20 years instead of sticking with the same OS for the next 20 years. Backward compatibility has been the biggest blessing/problem for Microsoft :) It's helped their Market share get to where it is today, but it's also slowed down their ability to really make major changes to their OS. If they reach a point where they can run all major things in older VM's they could totally revamp their OS with the possibility of people actually using it.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64 x 3, Hyper V R2, Ubuntu, RHEL, OS X.. Too many
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom
#35
64-bit all the way...

To make a long story short, Windows 8 should be x64 only, and people with hardware inadequacies could stick with Windows 7 x86...

The hardware base is already there, and the software base wouldn't take that long to catch-up...

Why hinder those who are willing to make the jump to a totally 64-bit world with Windows 8, as long as there is continued support for those left in the 32-bit realm of existence...

My two cents worth, Marvin
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Build 7232 x64 (clean install)
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom by Charbroil57
    CPU
    AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition 3.1GHz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X ATX AMD
    Memory
    8 GB (4 x 2 GB) Corsair 6400C5 800 MHz
    Graphics Card(s)
    BFG 512MB GDDR3 9600GT OC
    Sound Card
    Realtec HD Audio 5.1
    Monitor(s) Displays
    DVI Westinghouse LCD-22W3
    Screen Resolution
    1680 x 1050
    Hard Drives
    500 GB SATA 3G Seagate Barracuda &
    500 GB USB Seagate Desktop Drive
    PSU
    Ultra LSP 650w
    Case
    Antec Sonata
    Cooling
    Stock (80w CPU)
    Keyboard
    Microsoft Wireless Desktop Elite
    Mouse
    Wirless Intellimouse Explorer 2.0
    Internet Speed
    Comcast Broadband (15.8 Mb/s download & 2.3 Mb/s upload)
    Other Info
    SATA HP Lightscribe DVD RW
    SATA Samsung Lightscribe DVD RW

raj11650

Member
Member
Chennai ,India

Posts
97
#36
i've read strong rumors to suggest Windows 8 is gonna solely be a 64bit OS, what's all you's opinions on this?
if windows 8 gonna be only x64 OS then im sure windows 8 will be same as early vista days with less/poor reception!!!:(
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 RTM x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    CPU
    core i 3 3220
    Motherboard
    gigabyte B75h d3H
    Memory
    8gb
    Graphics Card(s)
    integrated with MB
    Monitor(s) Displays
    dell 2420 24 inch
    PSU
    corsair 500 watts
    Case
    coolermaster 431
    Keyboard
    dell
    Mouse
    HP
Posts
2
#38
Windows 8 will be x64 only

Windows 8 will have to be x64 only, because 7 and Vista are already pushing 32-bit to its limits. If Windows 8 has anything new to add in terms of functionality, it will need more horsepower than a 32-bit CPU can provide. Just take a look at how much RAM it takes for Vista to run properly, Vista and 7 require at least 4, even 8 gigs of RAM before they run completely smooth. If Windows 8 is even twice as demanding in terms of RAM (most Windows transitions have historically required 4 to 8 times as much RAM), that would require 8 to 16 gigs of RAM, while 32-bit can't even fully address 4 gigs.
 

My Computer

DarkNovaGamer

MintyWhite Writer
Member
United States

Posts
102
#39
Windows 8 will have to be x64 only, because 7 and Vista are already pushing 32-bit to its limits. If Windows 8 has anything new to add in terms of functionality, it will need more horsepower than a 32-bit CPU can provide. Just take a look at how much RAM it takes for Vista to run properly, Vista and 7 require at least 4, even 8 gigs of RAM before they run completely smooth. If Windows 8 is even twice as demanding in terms of RAM (most Windows transitions have historically required 4 to 8 times as much RAM), that would require 8 to 16 gigs of RAM, while 32-bit can't even fully address 4 gigs.
Sorry but my opinion is this;

Until over 70% of computer owners have a 64-bit compatible machine, they will continue to market 32-bit.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Pro. x64
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom
    CPU
    AMD Athlon II X2 240 @ 2.8GHz
    Motherboard
    Asus M4A785-M
    Memory
    G-Skill 2 x 1GB DDR2 800MHz
    Graphics Card(s)
    (Integrated) ATI Radeon 4200
    Sound Card
    VT1708S High Definition Audio 8-Channel
    Monitor(s) Displays
    16" CRT
    Screen Resolution
    [email protected]
    Hard Drives
    Seagate ST3300831AS - 300GB 7200rpm (RAID0)
    Seagate ST3300831AS - 300GB 7200rpm (RAID0)
    Hitachi HDP725016GLA380 - 160GB 7200rpm
    PSU
    Raidmax 450W
    Case
    Raidmax Tornado
    Cooling
    Thermaltake SpinQ (aka: Black Widow)
    Keyboard
    Standard Dell
    Mouse
    Microsoft Wireless Arc Mouse (black)
    Internet Speed
    Download: 1.6mbps, Upload: 320kbps

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)