Why bother with 32-bit Longhorn? | The Coffeehouse

daSmirnov

I blogged about this a while ago.

Now x64 is out, I've come to realise 3rd party support is a lot less then what I was expecting. Barely anything has improved from 3-6 months ago. The companies supporting it have drivers out, they're not very good quality (still) and those companies that don't care about it are just doing nothing, with drivers and software pencilled in for "later".

With 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Longhorn most likely being much more even than it is at the moment, and with Joe Pubic no doubt buying 64-bit Longhorn on their new PCs, wouldn't it save so much confusion to consumers to simply make Longhorn 64-bit.

A lot of people can barely understand why some of their old games don't run on XP, imagine how confused they're going to get when their friends 32-bit Longhorn can run something, yet their 64-bit machine may have issues with it. Or worse still if they've got a 64-bit application, and they want to give it to their friend on 32-bit.

Sure it will cut down initial sales, I won't be able to upgrade my Tablet, or my other secondary machine (by then I'll no doubt have a second x64 box anyway). But it would make the transistion so much easier, it would be done in one big swoop, all the 3rd parties on the side lines would have to move to support it.

Or may be not go hardcore 64-bit only, but if OEMs want the Longhorn logo on their PC it has to ship with the 64-bit version. That would help a lot.

What do you think?

Heywood_J
Trust me, I'm from the Internets

Being 64 bit only would make Longhorn a lot like Linux -- a good OS but nobody can use it due to lack of drivers.

Manip

I have to agree. I don't even own a 64bit CPU and this would cost me a LOT of money but I would support it. We can't have two lines for longhorn it will result in chaos

Programous

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this. While I would like 64 bit computing to be more standard, there’s just way too many 32 bit CPU’s out there that couldn’t use it. You would render all of the tablets out (and that’s kid of a big thing for MS) and it would be a real pain for people who have really decent computers that aren’t planning to upgrade for a few years. Also, from what I’ve heard from MS the WOW will allow almost all 32-bit apps to run on 64, and most places make 64 bit apps also make 32. In addition, if you’re using the .net framework for your apps there’s no difference, MSIL is the same for 32 and 64 bit, it’s the runtime that is different.

eagle

I've already writen on another thread that Longhorn 32bit will be the Windows ME of the Twenty First Century.

BryanF

Actually, I just recently read an article that said that chipmakers (specifically Intel) plan on continuing to produce 32-bit chips for the mobile market for some time to come. This is specifically aimed at tablets. Although 64-bit could be useful in such devices, it increases power consumption significantly. The next-gen Pentium M architecture is supposed to be duel-core and 32-bits; they're looking to be able to run 8 hours on a single charge by 2008. The article suggested they may introduce a 64-bit version when Longhorn comes out, but this seemed to be mere conjecture. In any case, it seems 32-bit machines will be around until the relative power consumption increase in 64-bit machines seems reasonable for ultra-mobile form factors.

Article here.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Yes, I would love to see driver support improve, but I don't think scratching 32 bit versions of the OS is a good move at this point.

A better way, perhaps, is to change the WHQL program. Make it so that you can only WHQL certify a driver for Longhorn if you provide both a 32 and 64 bit version (that both pass the tests of course).

The current situation isn't that bad for me. The only piece of hardware I don't have drivers for on x64 is my TV card (Leadtek WinFast 2000XP Expert), and although it's unclear whether they will add support in the future, I don't really care since I rarely used it anyway. My motherboard chipset (nVidia nForce4), video card (nVidia GeForce 6600GT) and sound card (Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy2) are all supported on x64, and although the last only with preview drivers (from preview.creativelabs.com), they work without trouble.

Strangely enough, drivers aren't the biggest problem for me. What really surprised me is that the largest problem I have is explorer extensions. I really miss the WinRAR context menu, which the 64 bit explorer can't load because it's a 32 bit extension. And my HTML file icons are screwed up because Office registers a 32 bit IconHandler (so it can display a word icon for html files created in word, etc) which the 64 bit explorer can't use. And I miss a few pieces of software that rely on non-hardware related drivers that haven't been ported yet, mostly Daemon Tools (which will support x64 in the next version, no clue when that's gonna be out though) and Ethereal (no word on that yet).

eagle

We're moving to 64bit, Microsoft should not be dragging their feet with 32bit Longhorn.

How about a Windows '95 16bit version?

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

That was different. Even for Joe Average at that time, the limits of 16 bits had been reached. Currently, and for at least some time to come, 32 bit will be good enough for your average computer user.

jsrfc58

You realize that in another 5-10 years the argument will be "why build a 64-bit version of Windows?" because everything will start shifting to 128 bit processors. Then, to 256-bit. Then...

I would think you would have to come out with a 32-bit version for the time being because so many companies (think: the health care industry) are still transitioning over to XP or just completed the transition. Jumping to 64-bit and 64-bit only Windows would require an upgrade in software and hardware. We just did both, and on a large scale. I can't imagine much willingness to go through that again in a couple of years (at least not where I am at with the budget limitations). They may, however, transition to Longhorn if it offers enough of an incentive.

Edit: I just thought of something else...on the Apple platform (in the late 80's/early 90's) there existed 8-bit and 16-bit versions of the ProDOS operating system at the same time. So, creating "dual commercial versions" of an OS is not unprecedented, of course. Plus, there was enough of a hardware distinction to make it clear what would work on your particular system. Of course their market share was, and still is, small.

eagle

When Windows ’95 came out you guys were young and wanted to change the world, now you’re part of the Establishment and want everything to stay the same.

I can't waite for Gigibit Processors!

sbc
GW R/Me

Sven Groot wrote:
That was different. Even for Joe Average at that time, the limits of 16 bits had been reached. Currently, and for at least some time to come, 32 bit will be good enough for your average computer user.

I think that is true as well. I wonder how long before you reach the potential of 32 bit?

What will be the benefits of forcing everyone to use a 64 bit operating system? How does it improve playback of DVD's, or word processing / email / general office productivity? I'm sure even to some people, there is no noticeable difference between a 3.0Ghz P4 bought 2 years ago with a 3.6Ghz one bought now.

People may compare the transition from 32 bit > 64 bit to 16 bit > 32 bit (or DOS > Windows). But they are completely different. Multimedia wasn't particularly good with 16 bit, but it is more than adequate now with 32 bit. 64 bit may only really benefit those with high spec PCs and requirements (i.e. rendering 3d animation, compiling large programs).

Not pecifically related to 64 bit, but even with GPU's now (which can be the most expensive part of a PC now), the top spec ones offer no benefit over mainstream ones (dual GPU PCI Express vs AGP8x) with the best quality games you get now (Doom 3). How much better can graphics get with newer games (15-17" LCD's, not huge 23" ones at very high resolutions - 1280 x 768 vs. 1920 x 1200)?

Edit:
Infact, the limitation today is not the CPU or GPU, but the hard drive. It is the main bottleneck of the PC. What I would like to see a lot more than 64 bit or dual core CPU's is a hard drive that is just as fast as RAM. You could truly have a PC that booted up in seconds, and a lowly Celeron or Duron would be adequate. It is only when you get into heavy processing that you need a powerful CPU - and most everyday applications don't need that (even games still have Pentium III as the minimum requirement, as most of the work is done by the GPU).

msemack
Embedded Systems Guy

eagle wrote:
How about a Windows '95 16bit version?

When Windows 95 came out, the last 16-bit CPU (the 286) was long dead. Even the 386 was obsolete. The 486 was mainstream, and the Pentium was at the high end.

Making a 16-bit version wouldn't have made sense. Besides, one of the big selling points of Windows 9x was the 32-bit protected mode stuff.

Now, even when Longhorn is released, the bulk of PCs will still be 32-bit. It's going to be a while before the $300 "budget box" from Dell is 64-bit.

If you made Longhorn 64-bit only, you're cutting off a huge portion of the market.

As it stands, people are complaining about the Longhorn system requirements.

eagle

A huge portion of the market is still using Windows 9X. They will always be able to upgrade to Windows XP.

eagle

I met the Longhorn team and I asked them “who is going to upgrade to Longhorn 32bit”, Enthusiasts was the answer I got, but Enthusiasts will already have upgraded to 64bit!

footballism
Another Paradigm Shift!

I just bought a new PC several months ago, and it's 32 bit. if MS plans to announce the 64 bit only Longhorn, it will be a hassle to me:) Smiley

Manip

eagle wrote:

I met the Longhorn team and I asked them “who is going to upgrade to Longhorn 32bit”, Enthusiasts was the answer I got, but Enthusiasts will already have upgraded to 64bit!

I'm just going to make up some figures to prove a point.

Lets say 8% of the market is home "Do it yourself" users, these users will be pissed having to buy a 64bit CPU for longhorn.

Now, lets also say that 32% is the home "Buy a new PC/Laptop" market (that don't know what an OS is, just use whatever their PC/Laptop/Tablet comes with).

And finally you have businesses at a massive 60% who also buy PCs + OSs all in one.

The second and third group will not get hit at all by a 64bit only Longhorn as the way they buy it would come with a PC that is already 64bit. The only people that might get hit are those 8% of upgraders that do it themselves with their own copy of the OS (retail copies).

daSmirnov

Yes but it's the chicken and the egg scenario, if Microsoft announce Longhorn would be 64-bit only - or announce to get the Built for Longhorn logo, 64-bit prices would plummet.

In the consumer world, very few people upgrade their current OS to a new OS - because for the large consumer base out there it's still just too complicated, or too much hassle.

For business etc, yes it would be an issue, which is why I back-pedalled on my first post and said any new computers that want the logo need to ship with a 64-bit OS.

eagle

I'm pissed its taken us this long to upgrad to 64bits!

footballism
Another Paradigm Shift!

eagle wrote:
I'm pissed its taken us this long to upgrad to 64bits!

Longhorn will have 64 bit version, and you can upgrade to that, just let us stick to the 32 bit OS:)

eagle

I've had a 64bit machine for almost two years now!

I'm running Windows XP 64 Edition.

The GPU will play a big role in Longhorns 3DUI, what GPU have you on that PC you just bought?

footballism
Another Paradigm Shift!

eagle wrote:

what GPU have you on that PC you just bought?

Athlon 2500+
It's much cheaper than Intel Pentium 4:)

eagle

All new systems will be 64bit and you know they will be more productive, "way more memory"...Bill Gates.

eagle

The GPU is the graphics processor.

sbc
GW R/Me

Perhaps when Longhorn comes out, benchmarks should be done.

Same hardware, one running 32 bit edition, one running 64 bit. I can see the 64 bit one showing improvements for some programs, but other may be pretty much the same.

What will be interesting is the price difference between a 64 bit system and a 32 bit one. And if the increase in productivity pays for it.