Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Joe Pasternak, Dec 24, 2007.

  1. Joe Pasternak

    Nero Guest

    You are saying in essence that Microsoft really flopped when it comes to
    consumer research and marketing intelligence. I agree with you :)
     
    Nero, Dec 27, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joe Pasternak

    John Barnes Guest

    It would appear that the lack of research was on the part of someone who
    bought an operating system for which they had no need, neither on the
    hardware or software side. :) Microsoft has provided the system which will
    become adopted as the need arises, as it is doing in the server area which
    due to the larger memory requirements has substantially adopted 64-bit and
    if I recall, server 2008 will be the last one available in a 32-bit version.
    I suspect that it will be many years before the consumer market has a need
    for 64-bit.
     
    John Barnes, Dec 28, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yes, Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server. Exchange Server is already
    64-bit only. The enterprise market is only buying 64-bit hardware these
    days regardless of the software they are running on it so for the enterprise
    market the 64-bit era is already here.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 28, 2007
    #23
  4. Joe Pasternak

    John John Guest

    Don't be so sure, game makers are always pushing the envelope. Also
    many home users do video editing or run other memory demanding
    applications (like PhotoShop), I think it won't be all that long that
    the 4GB barrier will be busted by many home users. Nowadays most new
    32-bit machines ship with 2GB of RAM, anything in the order of 3GB to
    4GB on 32-bit is pretty well a waste because of the hardware memory
    address space requirements so 64-bit for home users may be coming faster
    than we think.

    John
     
    John John, Dec 28, 2007
    #24
  5. Joe Pasternak

    Bogey Man Guest

    I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64 bit
    versions of Vista. They should have just put out 64 bit versions and
    announce at the same time that 32 bit operating systems would not be
    supported after a certain date.
     
    Bogey Man, Dec 28, 2007
    #25
  6. Joe Pasternak

    John John Guest

    Oh, I don't think that they did! Microsoft relies on a large
    established base of third party software and hardware to sell its new
    operating systems. By going exclusively 64-bit they would have
    alienated many customers and they would have had a barrage of criticism
    and complaints, it would have backfired on them. When Windows 95 was
    launched, and when pure 32-bit NT was designed a conscious decision was
    made to make all possible attempts to keep these operating systems
    compatible with MS-DOS programs or, in the case of NT, to incorporate a
    Virtual Engine to run the old 16-bit legacy applications. Microsoft
    knew that a large base of installed 16-bit applications existed and that
    launching an operating system that couldn't run these old applications
    was a recipe for disaster, it was a marketing/design decision that
    ultimately turned out to be key to the wide acceptance and success of
    the Windows operating system.

    If Microsoft had announced the end of 32-bit support with Vista it would
    have been a marketing disaster. It may not be important to you or many
    other users but I assure you that many will be on 32-bit for a while
    yet, that applies especially to the small/medium size business market.
    Contrary to what some might think most companies don't have unlimited
    amounts of money available to spend and even more surprising to some
    folks, computers and software are not the first place or most important
    place for these small firms to put their money. The need for financing
    of income producing assets usually comes before IT expenditures. In
    some of these small firms a considerable amount of money may have
    already been invested in software and hardware, spending even more to
    replace that software or hardware for no good reason other than "things
    run on 64-bit now" is simply not an option for most companies. The
    switch to 64-bit is underway and it is unavoidable but I think that if
    you had $50,000 of software or a $10,000 plotter that couldn't run on
    64-bit you would not be so keen on making the switch!

    I know of doctors who have perfectly good medical imaging equipment
    worth more than $100,000 and that only run on DOS, these doctors have no
    intentions of replacing their old operating systems with 64-bit Vista!
    Less extreme than that are freelance professionals, or small
    manufacturing or engineering firms who have expensive drafting software
    and plotters, they too are in no hurry to spend $50,000 for new software
    and hardware just to be in the 64-bit loop!

    John
     
    John John, Dec 28, 2007
    #26
  7. Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any more?
    The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their software, not
    dictate to them what they should or should not do. The marketplace will
    dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue with 32-bit software.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 28, 2007
    #27
  8. Geez, Barnes, M$ pays you for public relations?

    The reason the "two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems" are "stable,"
    is because they lack third party driver/software support. I am sure you
    figured this out for yourself, didn't you?
     
    Marc Desiderius, Dec 28, 2007
    #28
  9. I agree with you, sort of like buying a can of sardines in the grocery store
    thinking it was a can of Caviar :)
     
    Marc Desiderius, Dec 28, 2007
    #29
  10. It doesn't really matter because, according to the press, neither one is
    ready for prime time, just like Linux he he he. Besides, I read somewhere
    that the 32 bit version of Vista runs slower than the 32 bit version of XP
     
    Marc Desiderius, Dec 28, 2007
    #30
  11. Joe Pasternak

    Bo Persson Guest

    Nero wrote:
    :: John Barnes wrote:
    ::: Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating
    ::: systems. That very few other manufacturers have seen fit to
    ::: provide 64-bit product probably relates to the lack of need
    ::: within most consumer products for greater that 32-bit support.
    ::
    :: You are saying in essence that Microsoft really flopped when it
    :: comes to consumer research and marketing intelligence. I agree
    :: with you :)

    The reason for Microsoft to release XP-64 was that they had promised
    AMD to do so. What else should an Athlon 64 use for an OS?!


    Bo Persson
     
    Bo Persson, Dec 28, 2007
    #31
  12. MS released XP Pro x64 as the client for Windows Server 2003 x64 and for
    workstation users. The memory limitations of x86 was probably the biggest
    reason workstation users wanted it.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 28, 2007
    #32
  13. Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems.
    I'm not sure where you're going with this. If you're trying to say that
    shoddy drivers are more prone to take down an OS (*any* OS), then yeah,
    that's common knowledge and should be no surprise to anyone.


    As for myself, I've been using XP x64 as my primary OS since mid-2005 or so,
    and I can't think of any hardware I have that doesn't have good drivers.
    The last time I saw a BSOD was due to a bad third-party RAID driver.
     
    Homer J. Simpson, Dec 28, 2007
    #33
  14. Joe Pasternak

    Bogey Man Guest

    If these people have no intention of changing software, why change operating
    systems? Vista 32 offers nothing of value over XP except for annoyances and
    would be a waste of resources to invest in an operating system that in
    reality offers most people nothing worth the money.....if it ain't broke
    don't fix it.
     
    Bogey Man, Dec 29, 2007
    #34
  15. Joe Pasternak

    Bogey Man Guest

    People will run whatever they have as long as it works and is supported.
    Take that support away and they will eventually change.
     
    Bogey Man, Dec 29, 2007
    #35
  16. Joe Pasternak

    Bogey Man Guest

    It must have been are real reliable and famous source if you can't remember
    it.
     
    Bogey Man, Dec 29, 2007
    #36
  17. Joe Pasternak

    John Barnes Guest

    You do sound like someone who is scared to make up their mind and NEEDS
    someone else to do it for you. You must feel really insecure having made
    the move to 64-bit and looking around and seeing most people happy and
    functionally rewarded staying with 32-bit. Many still have functional and
    necessary programs that are 16-bit and won't run on 64-bit Windows.
    May I suggest that you would probably be more comfortable in Cuba or North
    Korea where you won't have to feel insecure about your decisions and you
    won't even need to make them.
    Microsoft is not autocratic over the market and will provide what the
    customers (end users and builders) want, which will be influenced by their
    comfort level and future needs.
     
    John Barnes, Dec 29, 2007
    #37
  18. If their stuff works, why should they change?

     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 29, 2007
    #38
  19. Joe Pasternak

    Bogey Man Guest

    If you are referring to me, I am not the least bit insecure about 64 bit and
    am due to change my computer and when I do it will be a massive change. When
    I change, I will change everything that I can to 64 bit at the same time. I
    will however have to be patient because what I want isn't available at a
    price that I am willing to pay.

    I want to get a computer with multiple cores like dual quad cores and at
    least 8 gigs of ram expandable to at least 16 gigs or more. I also want 4
    SATA drives of at least 500 gigs each.

    Until software and hardware manufacturers climb on the 64 bit band wagon,
    there is little point in buying equipment that I will just have to replace
    because it isn't up to what I want to do.
     
    Bogey Man, Dec 30, 2007
    #39
  20. Are you on crack?
     
    Chris Campbell, Dec 30, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.