Where is the XP x64 MUI ?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    > I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?
    >
    > Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June
    > HERE:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx
    >
    > but I am starting to get pretty impatient.
    >
    > Is there any chance this will be available soon ?
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > Julian


    Well, the MUI Pack is available for some time now, the problem is that it's
    available on MSDN only, it's not for retail. so, if you don't have access to
    MSDN, you won't be able to put your hands on it, sorry

    Cheers


    --
    Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    Johannesburg - South Africa
    http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    > I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?
    >
    > Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June
    > HERE:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx
    >
    > but I am starting to get pretty impatient.
    >
    > Is there any chance this will be available soon ?
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > Julian


    BTW, MUI is the langage pack, the link you posted refers to the Exchange
    program, not quite the same.
    If you mean you still waiting for your cd, just check your statut.

    Cheers


    --
    Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    Johannesburg - South Africa
    http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 19, 2005
    #3
  4. No, I've had my XP x64 CD since early May, I'm referring to the note on
    that page saying:

    "Note: Multilingual User Interface Packs for Windows XP Professional x64
    Edition will be available here for download in June 2005."

    and to various articles by MS stating that instead of multiple regional
    versions, the XP x64 will use MUI to provide different language versions
    for the OS - the current situation is OK if you're an OEM or MSDN
    subscriber (thanks for the info BTW), but I need to install a French
    interface on one rig, I have an x64 license, and I don't see why this
    should be a privilege reserved to a "Happy Few"...

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:53:11 +0200, Christian Hougardy
    <> wrote:

    > Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    >> I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?
    >>
    >> Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June
    >> HERE:
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx
    >>
    >> but I am starting to get pretty impatient.
    >>
    >> Is there any chance this will be available soon ?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >>
    >> Julian

    >
    > BTW, MUI is the langage pack, the link you posted refers to the Exchange
    > program, not quite the same.
    > If you mean you still waiting for your cd, just check your statut.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 19, 2005
    #4
  5. Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    > No, I've had my XP x64 CD since early May, I'm referring to the note
    > on that page saying:
    >
    > "Note: Multilingual User Interface Packs for Windows XP Professional
    > x64 Edition will be available here for download in June 2005."
    >
    > and to various articles by MS stating that instead of multiple
    > regional versions, the XP x64 will use MUI to provide different
    > language versions for the OS - the current situation is OK if you're
    > an OEM or MSDN subscriber (thanks for the info BTW), but I need to
    > install a French interface on one rig, I have an x64 license, and I
    > don't see why this should be a privilege reserved to a "Happy Few"...
    >

    Moi non plus, je l'ai déjà dit et répété à plusieurs occasions, mais il se
    trouve que les packs MUI ne sont disponibles que pour les grands groupes ou
    les abonnés MSDN.

    J'attends toujours une réponse.

    Amicalement


    --
    Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    Johannesburg - South Africa
    http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Julian Lord [PROneTworks]

    Mirko Guest

    "Christian Hougardy" <>
    :...
    > Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    >> I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?
    >>
    >> Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June
    >> HERE:
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx
    >>
    >> but I am starting to get pretty impatient.
    >>
    >> Is there any chance this will be available soon ?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >>
    >> Julian

    >
    > Well, the MUI Pack is available for some time now, the problem is that
    > it's available on MSDN only, it's not for retail. so, if you don't have
    > access to MSDN, you won't be able to put your hands on it, sorry
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >
    > --
    > Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    > Johannesburg - South Africa
    > http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >


    Well, at least here in Germany stores are already selling Windows XP Prof.
    x64 Edition "with German and Japanese Multilingual User Interface CD".

    So, if I really desperately needed it I could go out, spend another 150
    Euro and have the German MUI Pack in my hands immediately. ;-)

    (though, I don't know how is the situation in other countries)
     
    Mirko, Jun 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Mirko <> wrote:

    >
    > Well, at least here in Germany stores are already selling Windows XP
    > Prof. x64 Edition "with German and Japanese Multilingual User
    > Interface CD".
    > So, if I really desperately needed it I could go out, spend another
    > 150 Euro and have the German MUI Pack in my hands immediately. ;-)
    >
    > (though, I don't know how is the situation in other countries)


    Hi Mirko, those are the only 3 languages available. It is not an MUI Pack
    but a real version in German.

    Cheers



    --
    Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    Johannesburg - South Africa
    http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 19, 2005
    #7
  8. Its available to MSDN Subscribers and Volume License customers only.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.sslrjkqcjql5il@julianlord...
    I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?

    Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June HERE:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx

    but I am starting to get pretty impatient.

    Is there any chance this will be available soon ?

    cheers,

    Julian

    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Yep, the message was directly targetted at MSDN and Volume license
    customers. The should have made it more specific.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.ssls37e1jql5il@julianlord...
    No, I've had my XP x64 CD since early May, I'm referring to the note on
    that page saying:

    "Note: Multilingual User Interface Packs for Windows XP Professional x64
    Edition will be available here for download in June 2005."

    and to various articles by MS stating that instead of multiple regional
    versions, the XP x64 will use MUI to provide different language versions
    for the OS - the current situation is OK if you're an OEM or MSDN
    subscriber (thanks for the info BTW), but I need to install a French
    interface on one rig, I have an x64 license, and I don't see why this
    should be a privilege reserved to a "Happy Few"...

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:53:11 +0200, Christian Hougardy
    <> wrote:

    > Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    >> I'm wondering, where is the XP x64 MUI ?
    >>
    >> Initially promised for early May, it's currently promised for June
    >> HERE:
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx
    >>
    >> but I am starting to get pretty impatient.
    >>
    >> Is there any chance this will be available soon ?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >>
    >> Julian

    >
    > BTW, MUI is the langage pack, the link you posted refers to the Exchange
    > program, not quite the same.
    > If you mean you still waiting for your cd, just check your statut.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Should I get an illegal .torrent then ?

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:10:59 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > Its available to MSDN Subscribers and Volume License customers only.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Christian Hougardy, Jun 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Exactly!
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Christian Hougardy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Julian Lord [PROneTworks] <> wrote:
    >> Should I get an illegal .torrent then ?
    >>

    > Do you expect an answer here ?? :)
    >
    > --
    > Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    > Johannesburg - South Africa
    > http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Well, if this is true, and it's Microsoft policy, it's simply DISMAL in my
    opinion

    Sounds like MS are trying to make their statements that XP x64 will need a
    year before it really takes off into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    How can they expect Jo le Public, Giorgio Pubblico, and Ahmed Al-Public to
    even _contemplate_ trying XP x64 if it's not readily available in their
    foreign idioms ???

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:10:59 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > Its available to MSDN Subscribers and Volume License customers only.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 20, 2005
    #13
  14. No, x64 is ready, its just not tailored to specific environments yet, here's
    a sample of the target audience:

    The big benefits of course will not be realized by the consumer or
    enthusiast, but by persons in technical environments who use memory and
    mathematically intensive applications such as databases. Windows XP
    Professional x64 provides the highest levels of performance and scalability
    for Digital Content Creation, Computer Mechanical Design & Analysis and for
    Financial & Data Analysis.

    So, Windows XP Professional x64 is definitely not an operating system for
    the average Windows user who is doing basic stuff such as browsing the net
    or sending e-mails and writing one page documents in Word. But it is likely
    that by the end of this year, any PC purchased will be 64 bit enabled, which
    does not necessarily mean you are ready for a 64 bit OS. But it does give
    the user a sense of comfort knowing the capability is there ready to be
    taken advantage of by a largely supported 64-bit OS.

    The true beneficiaries are the technical ones in the technical environments
    who require the massive amounts of power this platform provides. Within the
    next 2 to 3 years 64 bit computing supported hardware and software should be
    more available than it is today and users will better take advantage of it
    with the appropriate applications written for the consumer market, so far
    that is not available.

    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.ssnxqfgclc7yzo@julianlord...
    Well, if this is true, and it's Microsoft policy, it's simply DISMAL in my
    opinion

    Sounds like MS are trying to make their statements that XP x64 will need a
    year before it really takes off into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    How can they expect Jo le Public, Giorgio Pubblico, and Ahmed Al-Public to
    even _contemplate_ trying XP x64 if it's not readily available in their
    foreign idioms ???

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:10:59 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > Its available to MSDN Subscribers and Volume License customers only.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 20, 2005
    #14
  15. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole "target audience" thing.

    XP x64 is quite simply superior to the 32-bit version, for several
    reasons, and I don't agree that the benefits will and/or should be enjoyed
    by a small number of (English-speaking) technocrats only.

    a) It is the first Windows Client OS to use the leaner and faster 2k3
    codebase. This alone makes it worth the purchase price, 64-bit benefits
    aside.
    b) The advantage trumpeted by Microsoft is that the x64 is better at
    handling "large quantities" of data. "Large" however is an entirely
    relative concept in this case, so we should conclude that XP x64 is better
    at managing "quantities" of data, ie it is a basically superior OS for all
    related purposes.
    c) Anyone having used XP x64 should by now have noticed that:
    c1) Sound reproduction is VASTLY superior, which is a Home Entertainment
    advantage, having nothing to do with "technical" environment issues.
    c1a) Although what the "difference" between "professional" and "technical"
    is a little mystifying from my own POV
    c2) Ditto graphics reproduction, viz. gaming et cetera, viz.
    non-"technical" usage of the OS
    c3) The OS hangs and/or slows down FAR LESS OFTEN than the 32-bit version,
    but are we to understand that such advantages should be reserved to some
    sort of x64 "technical" élite ???
    d) It's the wave of the future, we here are already surfing, and for the
    first time since about 1995 we can jump in, at the outset, and rush into
    the future of Home/Professional/Technical desktop computing.
    d1) BTW I hope the entire concept of the "Home" OS versus the
    "Professional" gets killed off. The only meaningful distinction should be
    OEM vs Retail.
    e) Sorry for the Rant BTW
    f) Frankly, Microsoft has done something amazing with the XP x64. For the
    first time in about ten years, a totally cutting-edge OS has been put as
    fast as possible into the hands of the "general" public (I use the word
    "general" advisedly, natch), no safety net provided maybe, but there is
    international enthusiasm for this new standard. It is IMO incomprehensible
    that Microsoft is not doing all it can to promote the x64 as quickly as
    possible, and in as many languages as possible (bearing in mind that in
    any case the OEM model is currently King of the Hill). Mac OS 64-bit is
    just around the corner, and with its foot in the 64-bit door, it's time
    for Microsoft to push, push, push as hard as it can, to ensure the maximum
    level of international exposure for the new 64-bit version of Windows,
    which I repeat is of interest far wider than the "technical" user that
    Microsoft envisions.
    g) x64, More! More!! More!!!

    cheers,

    Julian Lord
    PROneTworks

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:07:54 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > No, x64 is ready, its just not tailored to specific environments yet,
    > here's
    > a sample of the target audience:
    >
    > The big benefits of course will not be realized by the consumer or
    > enthusiast, but by persons in technical environments who use memory and
    > mathematically intensive applications such as databases. Windows XP
    > Professional x64 provides the highest levels of performance and
    > scalability
    > for Digital Content Creation, Computer Mechanical Design & Analysis and
    > for
    > Financial & Data Analysis.
    >
    > So, Windows XP Professional x64 is definitely not an operating system for
    > the average Windows user who is doing basic stuff such as browsing the
    > net
    > or sending e-mails and writing one page documents in Word. But it is
    > likely
    > that by the end of this year, any PC purchased will be 64 bit enabled,
    > which
    > does not necessarily mean you are ready for a 64 bit OS. But it does give
    > the user a sense of comfort knowing the capability is there ready to be
    > taken advantage of by a largely supported 64-bit OS.
    >
    > The true beneficiaries are the technical ones in the technical
    > environments
    > who require the massive amounts of power this platform provides. Within
    > the
    > next 2 to 3 years 64 bit computing supported hardware and software
    > should be
    > more available than it is today and users will better take advantage of
    > it
    > with the appropriate applications written for the consumer market, so far
    > that is not available.
    >




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Read this:
    Q: How is Microsoft positioning itself in the 64-bit market? Does your new
    64-bit operating systems favor any architecture over another?

    A: When we look at 64-bit, you've got x64 processors available from Intel
    and AMD that both have full 32-bit instruction set support and are extended
    for the 64-bit instruction set. Microsoft supports them both equally. At the
    very high end, you see the Itanium architecture, which fits very specific
    solutions. Microsoft doesn't favor any single approach because we believe
    that different approaches work well for different scenarios. Volume sales in
    the 64-bit market will be exclusively held by x64 systems.

    We see the shift to x64 for the server and workstation markets as being
    quite rapid. You can see from the AMD and Intel roadmaps that they are
    planning the shift to happen over the next two to three years. Consumer
    desktop and mobile PCs will move more slowly. The question for Microsoft to
    answer is where are the customers going to install 64-bit operating systems,
    and when they install the system, which applications will they use to take
    advantage of 64-bit, given that there is going to be a 32-bit compatibility
    issue cropping up for some time to come.

    On the server and workstation, that shift will be fairly rapid due to the
    substantial performance increases with databases, terminal server scenarios,
    CAD design, 3D modeling, rendering and other applications that require large
    memory support, or where floating point performance comes into play. The
    people who require those attributes will be the vanguard of the shift to
    64-bit.

    In consumer desktop and mobile PCs, it will just take time for the consumer
    to make the switch. We believe that it will be gaming and video editing that
    will prompt people to make the switch on the desktop, but these things will
    take time to reach critical mass and may need some killer solution to come
    out that makes people say "I've just got to have that!" pushing with it the
    64-bit solutions as a requirement to run the application or game.

    Q: Are the new desktop and the mobile 64-bit processors, like the newly
    released AMD Turion, prompting more people to switch to 64-bit operating
    systems?

    A: I think that the introduction of these 64-bit solutions from both AMD and
    Intel has changed the systems in terms of the processors, but the question
    remains, will a person switch to a 64-bit operating system just because they
    have a 64-bit processor, or will they just stay with a 32-bit operating
    system.

    What we really need to be asking is what application will be the catalyst
    that drives people to switch to a 64-bit operating system.

    In mobile devices, this is especially tricky because you want long battery
    life, and you're not generally running CPU-intensive or large
    memory-intensive applications and therefore, the impetus to switch to a
    64-bit operating system may be less. Over time, it will get there, of that I
    have no doubt, it is just a matter of how much time it will take.

    In workstations and servers, they've already hit the wall, they're begging
    for more processing power, larger memory and improved floating point, so
    they're ready to move to 64-bit. But for mobile applications, they're still
    asking for better instant on, longer battery life, and other functionality
    that doesn't require a 64-bit operating system.

    Q: What is Microsoft doing to answer the issues raised about 32-bit driver
    incompatibility? How will the new Microsoft operating systems support
    devices that do not have 64-bit drivers?

    In this matter, it is really no different than the switch from 16- to
    32-bit. We don't have the source code for all the drivers in the world, and
    the companies that manufacture the devices have to port their drivers to
    64-bit. Now Microsoft will do the standard things we do, and that is
    documentation, tools, training and then real incentives in terms of our logo
    programs for helping provide some momentum for vendors to provide device
    drivers that are both 32- and 64-bit compatible.

    That being said, there is no technical way for us to thunk a device driver
    in the kernel from 32-bit to 64-bit, because you really do need 64-bit
    drivers for kernel mode operations, they need to be ported, and the industry
    needs to do the work. We're doing the best that we can by supporting these
    efforts. What will really push the 64-bit device drivers is customer demand.
    The shift took a while to switch from 16- to 32-bit, and that was when the
    installed base for 16-bit was quite small relative to the growth of 32-bit
    systems. We're now at the point where the 32-bit install base is very high,
    so it will take a bit longer to make the switch to 64-bit.

    With user mode applications or devices, you can have 32-bit drivers, but
    with kernel mode drivers like those for storage devices, you need 64-bit.

    Microsoft is doing a lot of the 64-bit drivers itself, and the user can use
    our generic driver until a company like ATI or Nvidia comes out with their
    driver.

    Q: How is Microsoft handling all the legacy 32-bit software in the new
    64-bit environment? Will all legacy 32-bit programs be able to be run under
    Windows 64-bit OS?

    A: Any program that has a kernel mode component, and any program that has a
    device driver dependency are not going to run in 32-bit mode under a 64-bit
    operating system. Those types of programs will need to be ported to 64-bit.
    A lot of times, programs like media applications have assembly instructions
    in them and will very likely have to be partially if not completely ported
    to 64-bit because we can't emulate everything about the program.
    Applications that are on the edge like anti-virus software will need to be
    ported to 64-bit because it interfaces at a very low level with the system.
    Most antivirus programs have file system filters to scan for the viruses,
    and in the 64-bit system, the 32-bit file system filters will not work.

    So any program that requires third-party code to run in the kernel will not
    be able to be emulated under windows 64-bit, those programs will have to be
    ported to 64-bit. Applications that only require user mode instructions will
    run without problems under Windows 64-bit.

    Q: What have been some of the greatest challenges in regards to the switch
    from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS?

    A: Beside what we've already talked about, it is the barrier to entry and
    application value balance that needs to be just right for the switch to
    happen. For the server and workstation market, where needs are fairly
    specialized, many of the applications are 64-bit capable and the performance
    of those applications is quite high, which means the value is there, and so
    the barrier to adoption is quite low because there is an incentive to
    switch.

    On the other hand, for the general-purpose consumer market, the barriers are
    much higher, because there are so many applications out there and the
    applications that are currently available for 64-bit are quite few. There
    really isn't any application that is driving the "I've just got to have
    that!" mentality, so the incentive to switch to 64-bit hasn't reached the
    same point that it has in the server and workstation market.

    It really is quite hard to support two things and this is really a question
    we're seeing posed, in that, when are we going to be able to stop supporting
    32-bit drivers and make the complete switch to 64-bit? Manufacturers and
    application developers all want this nice notion of unity, in that
    everything just falls into place and they make the switch from one to the
    other. But we see that this will not be the case, and that we're going to be
    in a world that will have both 32- and 64-bit systems for quite some time.
    And I really think that is the biggest challenge.

    Q: Would Microsoft consider having a dual-mode kernel where you could have
    one kernel for 32-bit and one for 64-bit working in parallel, passing
    instructions and system messages back and forth, and acting as one system?

    A: That's actually quite hard to have since you really can only have one
    kernel loaded at a given time, with scheduling and other system tasks that
    unless you use virtualization to get an additional benefit, but even with
    virtualization, at some level, you still have to have the devices attached
    to the system, whether they are printers or hard drives, so would that mean,
    if I was in 64-bit, I would have to translate all of the instructions to
    32-bit or vice versa? That's actually quite a complex task for us to do,
    because really, if you could just print from 32- into 64-bit, then we could
    have just loaded the 64-bit driver and that just isn't the case. And having
    two operating systems is very difficult unless you do things to make sure
    that the storage and application name space are unified. A user doesn't want
    to have two start menus, or two programs for different modes, we only want
    one program per application, and we don't want to have two folders for
    different mode documents either. So this issue of 32-bit and 64-bit working
    in the same system being serviced by the same kernel just isn't as simple as
    placing two working kernels side by side.

    Instead, what we are concentrating on is making the 64-bit system offer as
    much of the 32-bit world as is possible, and then try to get those companies
    who make applications with some sort of kernel mode requirements to port
    their programs to 64-bit.

    Q: How is Microsoft working with its partners in helping them to better
    create software to best utilize the Windows 64-bit OS?

    A: The same way we always do, we've got development kits and real deep
    technical drill downs at events like WinHEC and professional developers
    conferences, in articles on MSDN, and in web content, in chats, and in
    community groups all with the purpose of getting our user base to understand
    and better use our systems.

    Q: Microsoft has had the beta version of Windows XP professional 64-bit
    edition available for quite some time. Has the availability of this
    operating system helped to push some vendors to provide driver support? Are
    any vendors lagging behind?

    A: What really pushes vendors to provide this type of support is customer
    demand. We have had some great early wins by customers that have helped move
    this platform and we have companies like AMD and Intel who we are working
    closely with in development, as well as spending the time and money to
    promote the solutions, and this all helps to push other vendors to get in on
    the action by being seen as early adopters. However, it's really when
    customers start buying in larger volumes that you'll see a much larger base
    of developers and manufactures providing the needed support. This is just
    like any other industry, the first movers bet that this technology will take
    off, and if done right, they reap the benefits with higher margins initially
    because they can charge more, and because there are a limited amount of
    competition, and they reap the benefit in terms of brand name. The quick
    followers will then come in a short time later with a lower cost to market
    than the initial movers, but they will not reap the same margins as those
    who were first to the market because they will take time to build up
    momentum.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm


    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.ssoiafhnlc7yzo@julianlord...
    I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole "target audience" thing.

    XP x64 is quite simply superior to the 32-bit version, for several
    reasons, and I don't agree that the benefits will and/or should be enjoyed
    by a small number of (English-speaking) technocrats only.

    a) It is the first Windows Client OS to use the leaner and faster 2k3
    codebase. This alone makes it worth the purchase price, 64-bit benefits
    aside.
    b) The advantage trumpeted by Microsoft is that the x64 is better at
    handling "large quantities" of data. "Large" however is an entirely
    relative concept in this case, so we should conclude that XP x64 is better
    at managing "quantities" of data, ie it is a basically superior OS for all
    related purposes.
    c) Anyone having used XP x64 should by now have noticed that:
    c1) Sound reproduction is VASTLY superior, which is a Home Entertainment
    advantage, having nothing to do with "technical" environment issues.
    c1a) Although what the "difference" between "professional" and "technical"
    is a little mystifying from my own POV
    c2) Ditto graphics reproduction, viz. gaming et cetera, viz.
    non-"technical" usage of the OS
    c3) The OS hangs and/or slows down FAR LESS OFTEN than the 32-bit version,
    but are we to understand that such advantages should be reserved to some
    sort of x64 "technical" élite ???
    d) It's the wave of the future, we here are already surfing, and for the
    first time since about 1995 we can jump in, at the outset, and rush into
    the future of Home/Professional/Technical desktop computing.
    d1) BTW I hope the entire concept of the "Home" OS versus the
    "Professional" gets killed off. The only meaningful distinction should be
    OEM vs Retail.
    e) Sorry for the Rant BTW
    f) Frankly, Microsoft has done something amazing with the XP x64. For the
    first time in about ten years, a totally cutting-edge OS has been put as
    fast as possible into the hands of the "general" public (I use the word
    "general" advisedly, natch), no safety net provided maybe, but there is
    international enthusiasm for this new standard. It is IMO incomprehensible
    that Microsoft is not doing all it can to promote the x64 as quickly as
    possible, and in as many languages as possible (bearing in mind that in
    any case the OEM model is currently King of the Hill). Mac OS 64-bit is
    just around the corner, and with its foot in the 64-bit door, it's time
    for Microsoft to push, push, push as hard as it can, to ensure the maximum
    level of international exposure for the new 64-bit version of Windows,
    which I repeat is of interest far wider than the "technical" user that
    Microsoft envisions.
    g) x64, More! More!! More!!!

    cheers,

    Julian Lord
    PROneTworks

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:07:54 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > No, x64 is ready, its just not tailored to specific environments yet,
    > here's
    > a sample of the target audience:
    >
    > The big benefits of course will not be realized by the consumer or
    > enthusiast, but by persons in technical environments who use memory and
    > mathematically intensive applications such as databases. Windows XP
    > Professional x64 provides the highest levels of performance and
    > scalability
    > for Digital Content Creation, Computer Mechanical Design & Analysis and
    > for
    > Financial & Data Analysis.
    >
    > So, Windows XP Professional x64 is definitely not an operating system for
    > the average Windows user who is doing basic stuff such as browsing the
    > net
    > or sending e-mails and writing one page documents in Word. But it is
    > likely
    > that by the end of this year, any PC purchased will be 64 bit enabled,
    > which
    > does not necessarily mean you are ready for a 64 bit OS. But it does give
    > the user a sense of comfort knowing the capability is there ready to be
    > taken advantage of by a largely supported 64-bit OS.
    >
    > The true beneficiaries are the technical ones in the technical
    > environments
    > who require the massive amounts of power this platform provides. Within
    > the
    > next 2 to 3 years 64 bit computing supported hardware and software should
    > be
    > more available than it is today and users will better take advantage of
    > it
    > with the appropriate applications written for the consumer market, so far
    > that is not available.
    >




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Yeah, I read that yesterday, I particularly like the "customer demand"
    thing.

    I just think there are _very few reasons_ (drivers support mostly) NOT to
    switch to x64, but that lack of general multilingual support is a BIGGIE..
    Maybe I'm just trying my best to slap away a gun that looks like it's
    aimed at Microsoft's foot...

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:37:55 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > Read this:
    > Q: How is Microsoft positioning itself in the 64-bit market? Does your
    > new
    > 64-bit operating systems favor any architecture over another?
    >
    > A: When we look at 64-bit, you've got x64 processors available from Intel
    > and AMD that both have full 32-bit instruction set support and are
    > extended
    > for the 64-bit instruction set. Microsoft supports them both equally. At
    > the
    > very high end, you see the Itanium architecture, which fits very specific
    > solutions. Microsoft doesn't favor any single approach because we believe
    > that different approaches work well for different scenarios. Volume
    > sales in
    > the 64-bit market will be exclusively held by x64 systems.
    >
    > We see the shift to x64 for the server and workstation markets as being
    > quite rapid. You can see from the AMD and Intel roadmaps that they are
    > planning the shift to happen over the next two to three years. Consumer
    > desktop and mobile PCs will move more slowly. The question for Microsoft
    > to
    > answer is where are the customers going to install 64-bit operating
    > systems,
    > and when they install the system, which applications will they use to
    > take
    > advantage of 64-bit, given that there is going to be a 32-bit
    > compatibility
    > issue cropping up for some time to come.
    >
    > On the server and workstation, that shift will be fairly rapid due to the
    > substantial performance increases with databases, terminal server
    > scenarios,
    > CAD design, 3D modeling, rendering and other applications that require
    > large
    > memory support, or where floating point performance comes into play. The
    > people who require those attributes will be the vanguard of the shift to
    > 64-bit.
    >
    > In consumer desktop and mobile PCs, it will just take time for the
    > consumer
    > to make the switch. We believe that it will be gaming and video editing
    > that
    > will prompt people to make the switch on the desktop, but these things
    > will
    > take time to reach critical mass and may need some killer solution to
    > come
    > out that makes people say "I've just got to have that!" pushing with it
    > the
    > 64-bit solutions as a requirement to run the application or game.
    >
    > Q: Are the new desktop and the mobile 64-bit processors, like the newly
    > released AMD Turion, prompting more people to switch to 64-bit operating
    > systems?
    >
    > A: I think that the introduction of these 64-bit solutions from both AMD
    > and
    > Intel has changed the systems in terms of the processors, but the
    > question
    > remains, will a person switch to a 64-bit operating system just because
    > they
    > have a 64-bit processor, or will they just stay with a 32-bit operating
    > system.
    >
    > What we really need to be asking is what application will be the catalyst
    > that drives people to switch to a 64-bit operating system.
    >
    > In mobile devices, this is especially tricky because you want long
    > battery
    > life, and you're not generally running CPU-intensive or large
    > memory-intensive applications and therefore, the impetus to switch to a
    > 64-bit operating system may be less. Over time, it will get there, of
    > that I
    > have no doubt, it is just a matter of how much time it will take.
    >
    > In workstations and servers, they've already hit the wall, they're
    > begging
    > for more processing power, larger memory and improved floating point, so
    > they're ready to move to 64-bit. But for mobile applications, they're
    > still
    > asking for better instant on, longer battery life, and other
    > functionality
    > that doesn't require a 64-bit operating system.
    >
    > Q: What is Microsoft doing to answer the issues raised about 32-bit
    > driver
    > incompatibility? How will the new Microsoft operating systems support
    > devices that do not have 64-bit drivers?
    >
    > In this matter, it is really no different than the switch from 16- to
    > 32-bit. We don't have the source code for all the drivers in the world,
    > and
    > the companies that manufacture the devices have to port their drivers to
    > 64-bit. Now Microsoft will do the standard things we do, and that is
    > documentation, tools, training and then real incentives in terms of our
    > logo
    > programs for helping provide some momentum for vendors to provide device
    > drivers that are both 32- and 64-bit compatible.
    >
    > That being said, there is no technical way for us to thunk a device
    > driver
    > in the kernel from 32-bit to 64-bit, because you really do need 64-bit
    > drivers for kernel mode operations, they need to be ported, and the
    > industry
    > needs to do the work. We're doing the best that we can by supporting
    > these
    > efforts. What will really push the 64-bit device drivers is customer
    > demand.
    > The shift took a while to switch from 16- to 32-bit, and that was when
    > the
    > installed base for 16-bit was quite small relative to the growth of
    > 32-bit
    > systems. We're now at the point where the 32-bit install base is very
    > high,
    > so it will take a bit longer to make the switch to 64-bit.
    >
    > With user mode applications or devices, you can have 32-bit drivers, but
    > with kernel mode drivers like those for storage devices, you need 64-bit.
    >
    > Microsoft is doing a lot of the 64-bit drivers itself, and the user can
    > use
    > our generic driver until a company like ATI or Nvidia comes out with
    > their
    > driver.
    >
    > Q: How is Microsoft handling all the legacy 32-bit software in the new
    > 64-bit environment? Will all legacy 32-bit programs be able to be run
    > under
    > Windows 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: Any program that has a kernel mode component, and any program that
    > has a
    > device driver dependency are not going to run in 32-bit mode under a
    > 64-bit
    > operating system. Those types of programs will need to be ported to
    > 64-bit.
    > A lot of times, programs like media applications have assembly
    > instructions
    > in them and will very likely have to be partially if not completely
    > ported
    > to 64-bit because we can't emulate everything about the program.
    > Applications that are on the edge like anti-virus software will need to
    > be
    > ported to 64-bit because it interfaces at a very low level with the
    > system.
    > Most antivirus programs have file system filters to scan for the viruses,
    > and in the 64-bit system, the 32-bit file system filters will not work..
    >
    > So any program that requires third-party code to run in the kernel will
    > not
    > be able to be emulated under windows 64-bit, those programs will have to
    > be
    > ported to 64-bit. Applications that only require user mode instructions
    > will
    > run without problems under Windows 64-bit.
    >
    > Q: What have been some of the greatest challenges in regards to the
    > switch
    > from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: Beside what we've already talked about, it is the barrier to entry and
    > application value balance that needs to be just right for the switch to
    > happen. For the server and workstation market, where needs are fairly
    > specialized, many of the applications are 64-bit capable and the
    > performance
    > of those applications is quite high, which means the value is there, and
    > so
    > the barrier to adoption is quite low because there is an incentive to
    > switch.
    >
    > On the other hand, for the general-purpose consumer market, the barriers
    > are
    > much higher, because there are so many applications out there and the
    > applications that are currently available for 64-bit are quite few. There
    > really isn't any application that is driving the "I've just got to have
    > that!" mentality, so the incentive to switch to 64-bit hasn't reached the
    > same point that it has in the server and workstation market.
    >
    > It really is quite hard to support two things and this is really a
    > question
    > we're seeing posed, in that, when are we going to be able to stop
    > supporting
    > 32-bit drivers and make the complete switch to 64-bit? Manufacturers and
    > application developers all want this nice notion of unity, in that
    > everything just falls into place and they make the switch from one to the
    > other. But we see that this will not be the case, and that we're going
    > to be
    > in a world that will have both 32- and 64-bit systems for quite some
    > time.
    > And I really think that is the biggest challenge.
    >
    > Q: Would Microsoft consider having a dual-mode kernel where you could
    > have
    > one kernel for 32-bit and one for 64-bit working in parallel, passing
    > instructions and system messages back and forth, and acting as one
    > system?
    >
    > A: That's actually quite hard to have since you really can only have one
    > kernel loaded at a given time, with scheduling and other system tasks
    > that
    > unless you use virtualization to get an additional benefit, but even with
    > virtualization, at some level, you still have to have the devices
    > attached
    > to the system, whether they are printers or hard drives, so would that
    > mean,
    > if I was in 64-bit, I would have to translate all of the instructions to
    > 32-bit or vice versa? That's actually quite a complex task for us to do,
    > because really, if you could just print from 32- into 64-bit, then we
    > could
    > have just loaded the 64-bit driver and that just isn't the case. And
    > having
    > two operating systems is very difficult unless you do things to make sure
    > that the storage and application name space are unified. A user doesn't
    > want
    > to have two start menus, or two programs for different modes, we only
    > want
    > one program per application, and we don't want to have two folders for
    > different mode documents either. So this issue of 32-bit and 64-bit
    > working
    > in the same system being serviced by the same kernel just isn't as
    > simple as
    > placing two working kernels side by side.
    >
    > Instead, what we are concentrating on is making the 64-bit system offer
    > as
    > much of the 32-bit world as is possible, and then try to get those
    > companies
    > who make applications with some sort of kernel mode requirements to port
    > their programs to 64-bit.
    >
    > Q: How is Microsoft working with its partners in helping them to better
    > create software to best utilize the Windows 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: The same way we always do, we've got development kits and real deep
    > technical drill downs at events like WinHEC and professional developers
    > conferences, in articles on MSDN, and in web content, in chats, and in
    > community groups all with the purpose of getting our user base to
    > understand
    > and better use our systems.
    >
    > Q: Microsoft has had the beta version of Windows XP professional 64-bit
    > edition available for quite some time. Has the availability of this
    > operating system helped to push some vendors to provide driver support?
    > Are
    > any vendors lagging behind?
    >
    > A: What really pushes vendors to provide this type of support is customer
    > demand. We have had some great early wins by customers that have helped
    > move
    > this platform and we have companies like AMD and Intel who we are working
    > closely with in development, as well as spending the time and money to
    > promote the solutions, and this all helps to push other vendors to get
    > in on
    > the action by being seen as early adopters. However, it's really when
    > customers start buying in larger volumes that you'll see a much larger
    > base
    > of developers and manufactures providing the needed support. This is just
    > like any other industry, the first movers bet that this technology will
    > take
    > off, and if done right, they reap the benefits with higher margins
    > initially
    > because they can charge more, and because there are a limited amount of
    > competition, and they reap the benefit in terms of brand name. The quick
    > followers will then come in a short time later with a lower cost to
    > market
    > than the initial movers, but they will not reap the same margins as those
    > who were first to the market because they will take time to build up
    > momentum.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 20, 2005
    #17
  18. The multi lingual thing has been solved, but its just not available to all,
    just Volume License and MSDN Subscribers.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.ssojo4ttlc7yzo@julianlord...
    Yeah, I read that yesterday, I particularly like the "customer demand"
    thing.

    I just think there are _very few reasons_ (drivers support mostly) NOT to
    switch to x64, but that lack of general multilingual support is a BIGGIE.
    Maybe I'm just trying my best to slap away a gun that looks like it's
    aimed at Microsoft's foot...

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:37:55 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > Read this:
    > Q: How is Microsoft positioning itself in the 64-bit market? Does your
    > new
    > 64-bit operating systems favor any architecture over another?
    >
    > A: When we look at 64-bit, you've got x64 processors available from Intel
    > and AMD that both have full 32-bit instruction set support and are
    > extended
    > for the 64-bit instruction set. Microsoft supports them both equally. At
    > the
    > very high end, you see the Itanium architecture, which fits very specific
    > solutions. Microsoft doesn't favor any single approach because we believe
    > that different approaches work well for different scenarios. Volume sales
    > in
    > the 64-bit market will be exclusively held by x64 systems.
    >
    > We see the shift to x64 for the server and workstation markets as being
    > quite rapid. You can see from the AMD and Intel roadmaps that they are
    > planning the shift to happen over the next two to three years. Consumer
    > desktop and mobile PCs will move more slowly. The question for Microsoft
    > to
    > answer is where are the customers going to install 64-bit operating
    > systems,
    > and when they install the system, which applications will they use to
    > take
    > advantage of 64-bit, given that there is going to be a 32-bit
    > compatibility
    > issue cropping up for some time to come.
    >
    > On the server and workstation, that shift will be fairly rapid due to the
    > substantial performance increases with databases, terminal server
    > scenarios,
    > CAD design, 3D modeling, rendering and other applications that require
    > large
    > memory support, or where floating point performance comes into play. The
    > people who require those attributes will be the vanguard of the shift to
    > 64-bit.
    >
    > In consumer desktop and mobile PCs, it will just take time for the
    > consumer
    > to make the switch. We believe that it will be gaming and video editing
    > that
    > will prompt people to make the switch on the desktop, but these things
    > will
    > take time to reach critical mass and may need some killer solution to
    > come
    > out that makes people say "I've just got to have that!" pushing with it
    > the
    > 64-bit solutions as a requirement to run the application or game.
    >
    > Q: Are the new desktop and the mobile 64-bit processors, like the newly
    > released AMD Turion, prompting more people to switch to 64-bit operating
    > systems?
    >
    > A: I think that the introduction of these 64-bit solutions from both AMD
    > and
    > Intel has changed the systems in terms of the processors, but the
    > question
    > remains, will a person switch to a 64-bit operating system just because
    > they
    > have a 64-bit processor, or will they just stay with a 32-bit operating
    > system.
    >
    > What we really need to be asking is what application will be the catalyst
    > that drives people to switch to a 64-bit operating system.
    >
    > In mobile devices, this is especially tricky because you want long
    > battery
    > life, and you're not generally running CPU-intensive or large
    > memory-intensive applications and therefore, the impetus to switch to a
    > 64-bit operating system may be less. Over time, it will get there, of
    > that I
    > have no doubt, it is just a matter of how much time it will take.
    >
    > In workstations and servers, they've already hit the wall, they're
    > begging
    > for more processing power, larger memory and improved floating point, so
    > they're ready to move to 64-bit. But for mobile applications, they're
    > still
    > asking for better instant on, longer battery life, and other
    > functionality
    > that doesn't require a 64-bit operating system.
    >
    > Q: What is Microsoft doing to answer the issues raised about 32-bit
    > driver
    > incompatibility? How will the new Microsoft operating systems support
    > devices that do not have 64-bit drivers?
    >
    > In this matter, it is really no different than the switch from 16- to
    > 32-bit. We don't have the source code for all the drivers in the world,
    > and
    > the companies that manufacture the devices have to port their drivers to
    > 64-bit. Now Microsoft will do the standard things we do, and that is
    > documentation, tools, training and then real incentives in terms of our
    > logo
    > programs for helping provide some momentum for vendors to provide device
    > drivers that are both 32- and 64-bit compatible.
    >
    > That being said, there is no technical way for us to thunk a device
    > driver
    > in the kernel from 32-bit to 64-bit, because you really do need 64-bit
    > drivers for kernel mode operations, they need to be ported, and the
    > industry
    > needs to do the work. We're doing the best that we can by supporting
    > these
    > efforts. What will really push the 64-bit device drivers is customer
    > demand.
    > The shift took a while to switch from 16- to 32-bit, and that was when
    > the
    > installed base for 16-bit was quite small relative to the growth of
    > 32-bit
    > systems. We're now at the point where the 32-bit install base is very
    > high,
    > so it will take a bit longer to make the switch to 64-bit.
    >
    > With user mode applications or devices, you can have 32-bit drivers, but
    > with kernel mode drivers like those for storage devices, you need 64-bit.
    >
    > Microsoft is doing a lot of the 64-bit drivers itself, and the user can
    > use
    > our generic driver until a company like ATI or Nvidia comes out with
    > their
    > driver.
    >
    > Q: How is Microsoft handling all the legacy 32-bit software in the new
    > 64-bit environment? Will all legacy 32-bit programs be able to be run
    > under
    > Windows 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: Any program that has a kernel mode component, and any program that has
    > a
    > device driver dependency are not going to run in 32-bit mode under a
    > 64-bit
    > operating system. Those types of programs will need to be ported to
    > 64-bit.
    > A lot of times, programs like media applications have assembly
    > instructions
    > in them and will very likely have to be partially if not completely
    > ported
    > to 64-bit because we can't emulate everything about the program.
    > Applications that are on the edge like anti-virus software will need to
    > be
    > ported to 64-bit because it interfaces at a very low level with the
    > system.
    > Most antivirus programs have file system filters to scan for the viruses,
    > and in the 64-bit system, the 32-bit file system filters will not work.
    >
    > So any program that requires third-party code to run in the kernel will
    > not
    > be able to be emulated under windows 64-bit, those programs will have to
    > be
    > ported to 64-bit. Applications that only require user mode instructions
    > will
    > run without problems under Windows 64-bit.
    >
    > Q: What have been some of the greatest challenges in regards to the
    > switch
    > from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: Beside what we've already talked about, it is the barrier to entry and
    > application value balance that needs to be just right for the switch to
    > happen. For the server and workstation market, where needs are fairly
    > specialized, many of the applications are 64-bit capable and the
    > performance
    > of those applications is quite high, which means the value is there, and
    > so
    > the barrier to adoption is quite low because there is an incentive to
    > switch.
    >
    > On the other hand, for the general-purpose consumer market, the barriers
    > are
    > much higher, because there are so many applications out there and the
    > applications that are currently available for 64-bit are quite few. There
    > really isn't any application that is driving the "I've just got to have
    > that!" mentality, so the incentive to switch to 64-bit hasn't reached the
    > same point that it has in the server and workstation market.
    >
    > It really is quite hard to support two things and this is really a
    > question
    > we're seeing posed, in that, when are we going to be able to stop
    > supporting
    > 32-bit drivers and make the complete switch to 64-bit? Manufacturers and
    > application developers all want this nice notion of unity, in that
    > everything just falls into place and they make the switch from one to the
    > other. But we see that this will not be the case, and that we're going to
    > be
    > in a world that will have both 32- and 64-bit systems for quite some
    > time.
    > And I really think that is the biggest challenge.
    >
    > Q: Would Microsoft consider having a dual-mode kernel where you could
    > have
    > one kernel for 32-bit and one for 64-bit working in parallel, passing
    > instructions and system messages back and forth, and acting as one
    > system?
    >
    > A: That's actually quite hard to have since you really can only have one
    > kernel loaded at a given time, with scheduling and other system tasks
    > that
    > unless you use virtualization to get an additional benefit, but even with
    > virtualization, at some level, you still have to have the devices
    > attached
    > to the system, whether they are printers or hard drives, so would that
    > mean,
    > if I was in 64-bit, I would have to translate all of the instructions to
    > 32-bit or vice versa? That's actually quite a complex task for us to do,
    > because really, if you could just print from 32- into 64-bit, then we
    > could
    > have just loaded the 64-bit driver and that just isn't the case. And
    > having
    > two operating systems is very difficult unless you do things to make sure
    > that the storage and application name space are unified. A user doesn't
    > want
    > to have two start menus, or two programs for different modes, we only
    > want
    > one program per application, and we don't want to have two folders for
    > different mode documents either. So this issue of 32-bit and 64-bit
    > working
    > in the same system being serviced by the same kernel just isn't as simple
    > as
    > placing two working kernels side by side.
    >
    > Instead, what we are concentrating on is making the 64-bit system offer
    > as
    > much of the 32-bit world as is possible, and then try to get those
    > companies
    > who make applications with some sort of kernel mode requirements to port
    > their programs to 64-bit.
    >
    > Q: How is Microsoft working with its partners in helping them to better
    > create software to best utilize the Windows 64-bit OS?
    >
    > A: The same way we always do, we've got development kits and real deep
    > technical drill downs at events like WinHEC and professional developers
    > conferences, in articles on MSDN, and in web content, in chats, and in
    > community groups all with the purpose of getting our user base to
    > understand
    > and better use our systems.
    >
    > Q: Microsoft has had the beta version of Windows XP professional 64-bit
    > edition available for quite some time. Has the availability of this
    > operating system helped to push some vendors to provide driver support?
    > Are
    > any vendors lagging behind?
    >
    > A: What really pushes vendors to provide this type of support is customer
    > demand. We have had some great early wins by customers that have helped
    > move
    > this platform and we have companies like AMD and Intel who we are working
    > closely with in development, as well as spending the time and money to
    > promote the solutions, and this all helps to push other vendors to get in
    > on
    > the action by being seen as early adopters. However, it's really when
    > customers start buying in larger volumes that you'll see a much larger
    > base
    > of developers and manufactures providing the needed support. This is just
    > like any other industry, the first movers bet that this technology will
    > take
    > off, and if done right, they reap the benefits with higher margins
    > initially
    > because they can charge more, and because there are a limited amount of
    > competition, and they reap the benefit in terms of brand name. The quick
    > followers will then come in a short time later with a lower cost to
    > market
    > than the initial movers, but they will not reap the same margins as those
    > who were first to the market because they will take time to build up
    > momentum.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 20, 2005
    #18
  19. Well sorry, but IMO that's not a solution, it's an *issue*.

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:39:04 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > The multi lingual thing has been solved, but its just not available to
    > all,
    > just Volume License and MSDN Subscribers.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Julian Lord [PROneTworks], Jun 20, 2005
    #19
  20. The point is, suppose a pirated multi-lingual copy of XP ever got in the
    hands of someone with a devious mind? Meaning, it has English, UK, US,
    German, French, Spanish, that would be bad for Microsoft's business.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Julian Lord [PROneTworks]" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.ssonk1f1lc7yzo@julianlord...
    Well sorry, but IMO that's not a solution, it's an *issue*.

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:39:04 +0200, Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    <> wrote:

    > The multi lingual thing has been solved, but its just not available to
    > all,
    > just Volume License and MSDN Subscribers.




    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alexander Pagatsch

    x64 Multilingual MUI available ?

    Alexander Pagatsch, May 22, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    565
    Joe Swart [MSFT]
    May 24, 2005
  2. Lutz Koenig

    x64 with German MUI available by atelco

    Lutz Koenig, Jul 22, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    433
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Jul 22, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?TWFyYXRvbm1hbm5lbg==?=

    MUI for Windows Server 2003 x64

    =?Utf-8?B?TWFyYXRvbm1hbm5lbg==?=, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    9,681
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 13, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?bG9zdHdvcmQ=?=

    Is there Hebrew MUI for X64?

    =?Utf-8?B?bG9zdHdvcmQ=?=, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    791
  5. digiman

    MUI for Win x64

    digiman, Dec 26, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    445
    Andre Da Costa
    Dec 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page