Will Windows 7 be 64 bit only or will they release a 32bit version as well?
I know I could ask Mr Google but I'm asking you guys first!
Will Windows 7 be 64 bit only or will they release a 32bit version as well?
I know I could ask Mr Google but I'm asking you guys first!
Will the 64bit flavour become the most popular version or, like Vista will the likes of Dell, HP etc be installing the 32bit version on all their PCs?? I can't understand why Vista 32bit is installed on so many 64 bit machines!
i'd love to just see a 64 bit version, if there was ONLY a 64b then drivers will be strong and stable
looks like your going to have to kill cotswoldcs then
VodkaOriginally Posted by Ephesians
lol at least he's not too far away in cotswolds!
if you google around a bit you can find that microsoft seems to be aiming at selling majority in 64bit for windows 7 which is good news
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windo...t-104157.shtml
I'm annoyed it's going to be available in 32bit flavour. I was annoyed Vista was 32bit also, it should have been killed off long ago but people have been too worried about back-compatibility. As a result we're stuck behind the times and doing twice the work for half the benefit.
Moo.
We might as well make the move altogether. It would, I agree, be better if Win7 went all 64-bit. That way it shortens its sales on the upgrade market, but then all future hardware will be 64-bit. I hate the slow slow slow moves away from legacy hardware just because some people might still use it. Only recently have I seen Serial ports removed from mobos.
Fair enough, a lot of people (me included) are running 32-bit hardware, but most of those people are also aware that win7 probably will necessitate a proper upgrade anyway.
One way forward might be to make OEM 32-bit available but only for preinstall on netbooks/nettops; any other OEM versions have to be 64-bit?
I'm not.
Reasons? Plenty of 32bit-only machines around, plenty of PC's with 2gb of RAM (and 64bit will eat into that unecessarily) and W7 is well suited to such systems. For example, my atom netbook and my media centre will remain 32bit, whilst my other systems will go 64bit.
The truth is that 64bit is no longer an outsider - MS enforce 64bit support for drivers and if you're building 64bit software then there's really no hit in putting out a 32bit as well. The pain (as a developer) comes in creating the 64bit build in the first place, thenafter it's trivial to set the compiler to produce a 32bit build.
I'm not saying that 32bit systems are bad - far from it. Those Atom's are hardly terrible, nor is any modern processor on a 32bit operating system. My point is more along the lines of holding back for no other reason than monetary. Same problems that actually caused the Millennium Bug in the first place "year 2000? Noone will be using our hardware/software by then"
then go back a bit more for the classic:
"640k will be enough for anyone."
It really, really grates me to see heels being dragged in such a manner. It REALLY got on my left nipple when I commissioned 40 brand new workstations the other day to find they were still shipped with PS2 keyboards and mice yet had done away with serial ports and parallel ports. In the same way it annoys me that programmers still think floppy drives a) should still exist and b) when they do they are always a:.
Little things that we shouldn't have to deal with. These changes should be transparent as far as the public are concerned, they shouldn't have to fuss with 32 or 64bits of whatever. They might only know the basics, have bought a PC, installed a new OS then a couple of months down the line get into photo chopping and to speed things up slap in another couple of gig of ram. Why shouldn't it just have worked? Because, dear sir, through no fault of your own you've fallen victim of someone else's heel dragging.
Moo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)