Latest Windows 8 Rumor Says RTM by April 2012

[nitrium]

I have three PCs, a desktop (4GB), a netbook (2GB), and a media-center PC (2GB). I have 64bit Win7 on ONE of them. Why on earth would I want the bloated 64bit drivers/apps on the latter PCs (not to mention lose support of my older peripherals which still work perfectly well, for which 64bit drivers don't exist)? MS would LOOSE sales from users like myself, who only want to install 64bit software on systems where 64bit software makes actual sense, i.e. those with >3GB RAM.

 

[MarioJP]

I used to be on 32bit till I upgraded 64Bit Having more than 4gb of ram 32bit does not cut it. Sadly most games are still in 32 bit mode , and for those that says "why Microsoft is still supporting 32bit still" should be asking the same question to Linux distros as well. Just thought I point that out

 

[dread_cthulhu]

Well, in response to the many questions to my first post...
A) Obviously, 64-bit allows addressing of more than 4 gigs of RAM.
B) 64-bit programs run somewhat faster
C) 64-bit OSes are marginally more secure than their 32-bit counterparts

I shall clarify my initial post as well: Why should a newly created OS tentatively thought to be released in 2012 support legacy tech that is more than a few years old? Linux shouldn't support this old tech either. Frankly, it would be beneficial to get all of the ancient software (some of it dating back to the 80s!) that businesses are running, and aging hardware out of the wild. Outside of the nightmare this ancient stuff creates for IT departments everywhere, it would also give the tech industry a nice little economic boost if a good many customers had to buy new equipment. Frankly I'm of the opinion that a new, 2012 OS such as Windows 8 should be released solely as a 64 bit OS, and those who continue to use 32-bit only hardware/software (out of necessity or pure stubborness) can use Windows 7 32-bit until MS decides to cut support. Which, if it goes the same way as XP, will be a good long time after Windows 8 releases, so there will be no worries. And the REALLY stubborn can be like the occasional person I run across these days still running 98... still on XP!

 

[ProDigit10]

Latest Windows 8 Rumor Says Read TheManual by April 2012

 

[SteelCity1981]

and those who continue to use 32-bit only hardware/software (out of necessity or pure stubborness) can use Windows 7 32-bit until MS decides to cut support.

Why do they need to cut support when there is still a big market out there for 32bit systems still? It's not about necessity or stubborness it's about what does your typical pc consumor acutally benefit from going to 64bit. What actual benefits are the typical pc consumer will from going from 32bit to 64bit if all they do is surf the internet, do some word processing, listen to music and watch movies on their pc every now and again like the vast majority of your typical pc consumer does? There is no benefit for those types of consumers which makes up the majority of pc consumers out there. So there isn't a need for them to jump on 64bit when they aren't going to see any benefit from it.

 

[adamboy64]

Lolz... oh man... they're still going to keep dragging 32-bit around?

Also, after seeing what they've done to the desktop side of Windows... I'd love to see what their new Server OS is like...

 

[Guest]

I Think people are forgetting one VERY important aspect...

UNLESS YOUR CPU SUPPORTS VT-x, you are STUCK VIRTUALIZING a 32-bit only environment.

And when do your virtual machines every use more than 4GB or memory each?

case closed.

 

[vincentyu]

[citation][nom]shompa[/nom]Every X86 cpu sold after jun 2006 have 64bit extensions. Apple stopped 32bit support with OSX 10.7. Micosoft should do the same. People with 6 years old PCs are not prime candidate to upgrade to Win8.The problem is that software does not get any boost on X86 64bit sine X86 is not a real 64bit processor. In 1995 when UltraSparc went 64bit, software became almost twice as fast on 64bit, then 32bit.In windows 64bit software usually are a couple of % slower then the 32bit version.More importantly: BIOS needs to be killed. It is redicious that they are selling 4 gig grapchic cards, and BIOS can only adress a bit over 2gig. People are so uneducated! EFI has been around since 2006. If Apple can boot Windows with EFI, why cant Dell? Just removing BIOS make the computer much faster. (this is the reason why Apple Windows machines beats same clocked Dell/HP PCs)[/citation]
Most Intel Sandybridge based motherboards sold this year come with UEFI(with BIOS compatibility). And all Intel boards have EFI/UEFI since 2006. Just FYI.

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]georgebbb[/nom]I Think people are forgetting one VERY important aspect...UNLESS YOUR CPU SUPPORTS VT-x, you are STUCK VIRTUALIZING a 32-bit only environment.And when do your virtual machines every use more than 4GB or memory each?case closed.[/citation]

What that has nothing to do with the cpu not fully support 64bit instructions, VT-x is for Virtualization purposes when running two OS in one enviroment.

 

[robd007]

[citation][nom]socalboomer[/nom]Because most Atom processors are x86. (Diamondville and mobile Pineview are the only 64bit Atoms so far)I tried (because I only had the 64bit media handy) to install 64bit on my netbook and it said the processor was not compatible with 64bit so I had to go with 32bit.[/citation]

and even if you do have a 64-bit atom (like me), the manufacturer only released 32-bit drivers for the netbook! (acer aspire one ao533)

 

[alidan]

if i could run 64bit on xp, i would, and i would dump 12-24gb of ram into my system too, but thats just me.

personaly, i would love to just have an os that functions EXACTLY like xp, but with a new engine underneath.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]dread_cthulhu[/nom]They're still making windows for X86? Why? 64 bit is superior in so many ways, and 90% of applications will run on it. People need to get away from the 32-bit only nonsense.[/citation]
Because there is software out there used in manufacturing and production that still runs 32 bit only and would cost millions and millions to replace, some companies still have old DOS software.

If you are going to convince them that they should upgrade to Windows 8 for some other part of their business you need to be able to support backwards compatability for as long as possible otherwise they simply won't buy Windows 8 at all.

It's hilarious when gamers think they are somehow the backbone of the IT purchasing chain.

 

[eddieroolz]

I'd love to dip my foot in the beta, but if there's only one then maybe I'll pull the trigger on the leaked ones...

 

[someoneelse]

I'm going to change the default settings so that windows 8 looks like windows 2000 pro?
I don't want my desktop to look like a phone OS