«

They say 32-bit is dead (Vista/Win 2008 is the last) anyone else heard this?
<side_dish>I guess feauture Home Server will still be 32-bit which might
create a good market for a 32-bit emulator of 64-bit if you ask
me.</side_dish>

makes me think all C++/WINAPI developers needs to take a step back and
decide if they shouldn't convert to .NET anyway.
- 64-bit .NET program should more often run better than 32-bit native on
64-bit->WOW32.
- You can, of course learn 64-bit dev as a C programmer, but there are many
new things one should learn these days, so it might be better to use the
time learning about the new platforms, for instance.
- .NET is in my humble opinion getting mature, you can for instance write
drivers in .NET these days (ok user-mode drivers, but that might actually
often be a good idea)
- C++ managed (or what ever) is pretty great in VS 2005 (compared to earlier
..NET C++ and even COM/C++ which I think is "suboptimal").
- You can't take your native routines and use them in silverlight, and I
suspect many new techs

ouch, I had much to say
53

Thor piffled away vaguely:

> They say 32-bit is dead (Vista/Win 2008 is the last) anyone else heard this?
> <side_dish>I guess feauture Home Server will still be 32-bit which might
> create a good market for a 32-bit emulator of 64-bit if you ask
> me.</side_dish>
>
> makes me think all C++/WINAPI developers needs to take a step back and
> decide if they shouldn't convert to .NET anyway.
> - 64-bit .NET program should more often run better than 32-bit native on
> 64-bit->WOW32.
> - You can, of course learn 64-bit dev as a C programmer, but there are many
> new things one should learn these days, so it might be better to use the
> time learning about the new platforms, for instance.
> - .NET is in my humble opinion getting mature, you can for instance write
> drivers in .NET these days (ok user-mode drivers, but that might actually
> often be a good idea)
> - C++ managed (or what ever) is pretty great in VS 2005 (compared to earlier
> .NET C++ and even COM/C++ which I think is "suboptimal").
> - You can't take your native routines and use them in silverlight, and I
> suspect many new techs
>
> ouch, I had much to say
> 53
>
Who cares? I don't write 'em. I just support 'em.
--

Catwalker
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
"I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."

Hi Thor,

Indeed, Windows Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS, and Windows Server
2008 will be the last 32-bit server OS.

M

"Thor" <> wrote in message
news:06942C26-78B5-4C0F-8D90-...
> They say 32-bit is dead (Vista/Win 2008 is the last) anyone else heard
> this?
> <side_dish>I guess feauture Home Server will still be 32-bit which might
> create a good market for a 32-bit emulator of 64-bit if you ask
> me.</side_dish>
>
> makes me think all C++/WINAPI developers needs to take a step back and
> decide if they shouldn't convert to .NET anyway.
> - 64-bit .NET program should more often run better than 32-bit native on
> 64-bit->WOW32.
> - You can, of course learn 64-bit dev as a C programmer, but there are
> many new things one should learn these days, so it might be better to use
> the time learning about the new platforms, for instance.
> - .NET is in my humble opinion getting mature, you can for instance write
> drivers in .NET these days (ok user-mode drivers, but that might actually
> often be a good idea)
> - C++ managed (or what ever) is pretty great in VS 2005 (compared to
> earlier .NET C++ and even COM/C++ which I think is "suboptimal").
> - You can't take your native routines and use them in silverlight, and I
> suspect many new techs
>
> ouch, I had much to say
> 53
>
>

Hello.

- Makes me think security will be easier.

- I suspect we will have Windows Server 2008 R2 in 2009/2010, will it come
in 32-bit? if it won't, there might be a situation where one can't use
non-beta MS virtualization to test the betas!

- Another strange thing I suspect we will see is service pack functionality
for Vista/WS2008 that only supports 64-bit (as you surley know sp source is
likely to be the same as the source used for Win vNext) which again means
that admin should put pressure against any 32-bit implementation today
(IMHO).

- Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever vNext
x64 will be supported?

53

"Montreal MCT" <> wrote in message
news:39C7EE43-CCD2-4014-B803-...
> Hi Thor,
>
> Indeed, Windows Vista will be the last 32-bit desktop OS, and Windows
> Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server OS.
>
> M
>
> "Thor" <> wrote in message
> news:06942C26-78B5-4C0F-8D90-...
>> They say 32-bit is dead (Vista/Win 2008 is the last) anyone else heard
>> this?
>> <side_dish>I guess feauture Home Server will still be 32-bit which might
>> create a good market for a 32-bit emulator of 64-bit if you ask
>> me.</side_dish>
>>
>> makes me think all C++/WINAPI developers needs to take a step back and
>> decide if they shouldn't convert to .NET anyway.
>> - 64-bit .NET program should more often run better than 32-bit native on
>> 64-bit->WOW32.
>> - You can, of course learn 64-bit dev as a C programmer, but there are
>> many new things one should learn these days, so it might be better to use
>> the time learning about the new platforms, for instance.
>> - .NET is in my humble opinion getting mature, you can for instance write
>> drivers in .NET these days (ok user-mode drivers, but that might actually
>> often be a good idea)
>> - C++ managed (or what ever) is pretty great in VS 2005 (compared to
>> earlier .NET C++ and even COM/C++ which I think is "suboptimal").
>> - You can't take your native routines and use them in silverlight, and I
>> suspect many new techs
>>
>> ouch, I had much to say
>> 53
>>
>>
>

* Thor <>:
> - Makes me think security will be easier.

Why? There's no direct security gain from 32->64. Microsoft
decided to implement some new security features only in x64
versions, but they won't directly affect the hard part of IT
security.

> - I suspect we will have Windows Server 2008 R2 in 2009/2010, will it come in
> 32-bit? if it won't, there might be a situation where one can't use non-beta MS
> virtualization to test the betas!

Maybe the same as with Exchange? A non-supported 32bit Version?
Besides, which virtualization company doesn't have a 64bit
Version out yet? (besides Microsoft)

> - Another strange thing I suspect we will see is service pack functionality for
> Vista/WS2008 that only supports 64-bit (as you surley know sp source is likely
> to be the same as the source used for Win vNext) which again means that admin
> should put pressure against any 32-bit implementation today (IMHO).

On servers, this should already be the case today.

> - Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever vNext x64
> will be supported?

No, seriously doubt that. It's not possible with Vista, and
wasn't with XP x64 or 2003 x64.

--
Read my blog at http://projectdream.org

Lukas Beeler piffled away vaguely:

> * Thor <>:
>> - Makes me think security will be easier.
>
> Why? There's no direct security gain from 32->64. Microsoft
> decided to implement some new security features only in x64
> versions, but they won't directly affect the hard part of IT
> security.
>
If they'd just let us implement percussive training methods with the
users, the hard part wouldn't be so hard. On us anyway. <eg>
>
>> - Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever vNext x64
>> will be supported?
>
> No, seriously doubt that. It's not possible with Vista, and
> wasn't with XP x64 or 2003 x64.
>
Surely there's an upgrade path between 2000 Pro and XP64 and Server
2000 to 2003 64? I think Thor's asking if you'll be able to upgrade
from the 32 bit version of 2008 to whatever comes after 2008 which
won't be 32 bit.

--

Catwalker
MCNGP #43
www.mcngp.com
"I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."

* catwalker63 <_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com>:
> >> - Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever vNext x64
> >> will be supported?
> > No, seriously doubt that. It's not possible with Vista, and
> > wasn't with XP x64 or 2003 x64.
> Surely there's an upgrade path between 2000 Pro and XP64 and Server
> 2000 to 2003 64? I think Thor's asking if you'll be able to upgrade
> from the 32 bit version of 2008 to whatever comes after 2008 which
> won't be 32 bit.

I assumed he meant inplace upgrades - sorry that i didn't clarify
this.

--
Read my blog at http://projectdream.org

Hi!

in line...

>> - Makes me think security will be easier.
>
> Why? There's no direct security gain from 32->64. Microsoft
> decided to implement some new security features only in x64
> versions, but they won't directly affect the hard part of IT
> security.

Who told you this?

>> - I suspect we will have Windows Server 2008 R2 in 2009/2010, will it
>> come in
>> 32-bit? if it won't, there might be a situation where one can't use
>> non-beta MS
>> virtualization to test the betas!
>
> Maybe the same as with Exchange? A non-supported 32bit Version?

Fairly unlikely, this.

> Besides, which virtualization company doesn't have a 64bit
> Version out yet? (besides Microsoft)

Wanna use MS only. If possible. Hate all the virtual net adapters. Wanna
avoid learning that other thing.b

>> - Another strange thing I suspect we will see is service pack
>> functionality for
>> Vista/WS2008 that only supports 64-bit (as you surley know sp source is
>> likely
>> to be the same as the source used for Win vNext) which again means that
>> admin
>> should put pressure against any 32-bit implementation today (IMHO).
>
> On servers, this should already be the case today.
>

agreee

>> - Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever
>> vNext x64
>> will be supported?
>
> No, seriously doubt that. It's not possible with Vista, and
> wasn't with XP x64 or 2003 x64.
>

the past does not equal the future.

53

> If they'd just let us implement percussive training methods with the
> users, the hard part wouldn't be so hard. On us anyway. <eg>

Yeah, well I think you spoil your users. Just a feeling.
Give them a taste of consequense from time to time:
http://www.cshl.edu/PDogs/DogSlides%...e/Slide25.html
and if it does not work:
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/str...0-defc4d2ab895
cats should enjoy this stuff, anyway.

>>> - Do you think upgrade from Windows Server 2008 x32 to Windows Sever
>>> vNext x64
>>> will be supported?
>>
>> No, seriously doubt that. It's not possible with Vista, and
>> wasn't with XP x64 or 2003 x64.
>>
> Surely there's an upgrade path between 2000 Pro and XP64 and Server
> 2000 to 2003 64? I think Thor's asking if you'll be able to upgrade
> from the 32 bit version of 2008 to whatever comes after 2008 which
> won't be 32 bit.
>

Yeah.
Also take into account that quick fixes and service packs are off-sets of
the next product being made. When there is no new product being made there
will be less quick fixes and service packs: 32-bit will be less supported
than 64-bit. Starting soon.

I think the main reason why you can't upgrade /32 to /64 is the drivers, I
can think of a few possible solutions:
a) Explain to the vendors not completing 64-bit drivers why they will soon
be out of biz.
b) Support 32-bit drivers (for instance in some semi-virtualized
environment)
c) Say you are upgrading x32->x64 while you are really making a clean x64
install virtualizing the existing x32.

I would go for c).

53

> I assumed he meant inplace upgrades - sorry that i didn't clarify
> this.
>

This is confusing to me.

From what I experience there are two classes of upgrade: side-by-side and
inplace upgrades.
Inplace is what I mean by replacing the binaries and keeping everything else
(I've actually seen this work).
I understand the consept of side-by-side upgrade for a database or
application server in that you install the new software while keeping the
old, and say, map clients to the new server interface.

I don't understand the consept of side-by-side upgrade for an OS. Dual boot?

53