SURPRISE!> Microsoft Plans to Combine 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Vista After SP1

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micro...P1-57389.shtml

Although it has downplayed Windows Vista Service Pack 1 as just a standard
refresh, Microsoft in fact plans to combine 32-bit and 64-bit versions of
its latest operating system. The Redmond Company is under an all out Windows
Omerta, gagging all details related to the first service pack for Windows
Vista, to Windows Seven or to Windows Fiji. But crumbs do fall from
Microsoft's table, and this piece of news via WindowsConnected is just such
an example. Much in the same manner in which a single DVD contains all the
editions of Windows Vista, Microsoft will also add both the 32-bit and the
64-bit versions to a single installer. This alteration is cooking now in the
Redmond Company's laboratories, and will be made available to consumers
following the release of the first service pack for Windows Vista, scheduled
for the end of 2007.

Unlike Apple, Microsoft cannot dictate the direction of hardware development
and adoption. Instead, the Redmond Company has to play to the tune of both
32-bit and 64-bit architectures with the Windows operating system. While
Windows Server 2008 will be the last server operating system for Microsoft,
Windows Vista still supports both 32-bit and 63-bit platforms. Windows
senior product manager Alex Heaton revealed that the word is still out on
whether Windows Seven, the successor of Windows Vista will be exclusively
64-bit or not.

Marrying 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on a single installer,
Microsoft will be one step closer to Apple, as the Cupertino-based company
will offer only 64-bit Leopard. The initiative is also designed to resolve
the gap between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista. Microsoft does not currently permit
upgrading or switching between x86 and x64 versions of the operating system.
This will no longer be an issue after SP1. In addition, the move delivers a
clue for the Redmond Company's plans with Windows Seven. If Microsoft does
not scrap 32-bit with their future Windows client, then it could include
both x86 and x64 on a single installer. Of course Microsoft has not
confirmed this aspect.

A while back, I read an article that provided a concise but seemingly
complete description of the differences in features between 32-bit and
64-bit versions of Vista. Typically, I can't remember where I found it.
Has anyoe seen anything similar?

--
David Dickinson
eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org
Please reply only to the newsgroup, not by email.

Allowing upgrades between 32 and 64-bit sounds awkward as they use
somewhat different directory and registry setups. There's also the
problem of lingering dlls of different bit types. 64-bit apps can't
call 32-bit dlls nor use 32-bit drivers. IE7 64-bit can't even do
freakin' Flash cuz there's no 64-bit Flash player.

"Tiberius" <> wrote in message
news:e1%...

> Unlike Apple, Microsoft cannot dictate the direction of hardware
> development and adoption. Instead, the Redmond Company has to play to the
> tune of both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures with the Windows operating
> system. While Windows Server 2008 will be the last server operating system
> for Microsoft,

I think you mean "Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server
operating system..."
- and may I add "thank goodness" to that for myself?

> Windows Vista still supports both 32-bit and 63-bit platforms. Windows
> senior product manager Alex Heaton revealed that the word is still out on
> whether Windows Seven, the successor of Windows Vista will be exclusively
> 64-bit or not.

<personal speculation>
They won't announce anything just yet due to the shrill screams of users
and, of course, to avoid shutting off an avenue before they have to, but I
think it will most certainly be 64-bit only.
</personal speculation>

> Marrying 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on a single
> installer, Microsoft will be one step closer to Apple, as the
> Cupertino-based company will offer only 64-bit Leopard.

Where did you get this information from? Because I think it's a load of
"Windows ME". OS X 10.5 will be, I believe, the first version of OS X that
can run fully 64-bit (iirc 10.4 does some patchwork pseudo-64 bit stuff here
and there when it can) but it will also run on 32-bit hardware just fine,
such as the PowerPC G4 and the Intel Core Duo (not-"core 2" version) that
power quite a lot of their still current hardware. The current beta is aimed
at "PowerPC G4 or higher" for sure.

Robert I am just copy pasting the info from the link I have already provided
in my post!.. this article is NOT mine!

The link towards this information is the first thing you see in the post!



"Robert Moir" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Tiberius" <> wrote in message
> news:e1%...
>
>> Unlike Apple, Microsoft cannot dictate the direction of hardware
>> development and adoption. Instead, the Redmond Company has to play to the
>> tune of both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures with the Windows operating
>> system. While Windows Server 2008 will be the last server operating
>> system for Microsoft,
>
> I think you mean "Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server
> operating system..."
> - and may I add "thank goodness" to that for myself?
>
>> Windows Vista still supports both 32-bit and 63-bit platforms. Windows
>> senior product manager Alex Heaton revealed that the word is still out on
>> whether Windows Seven, the successor of Windows Vista will be exclusively
>> 64-bit or not.
>
> <personal speculation>
> They won't announce anything just yet due to the shrill screams of users
> and, of course, to avoid shutting off an avenue before they have to, but I
> think it will most certainly be 64-bit only.
> </personal speculation>
>
>> Marrying 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on a single
>> installer, Microsoft will be one step closer to Apple, as the
>> Cupertino-based company will offer only 64-bit Leopard.
>
> Where did you get this information from? Because I think it's a load of
> "Windows ME". OS X 10.5 will be, I believe, the first version of OS X that
> can run fully 64-bit (iirc 10.4 does some patchwork pseudo-64 bit stuff
> here and there when it can) but it will also run on 32-bit hardware just
> fine, such as the PowerPC G4 and the Intel Core Duo (not-"core 2" version)
> that power quite a lot of their still current hardware. The current beta
> is aimed at "PowerPC G4 or higher" for sure.
>

Oh dear.. another popped.. :-)


"Tiberius" <> wrote in message
news:u5Z$...
> Robert I am just copy pasting the info from the link I have already
> provided in my post!.. this article is NOT mine!
>
> The link towards this information is the first thing you see in the post!
>
>
>
> "Robert Moir" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "Tiberius" <> wrote in message
>> news:e1%...
>>
>>> Unlike Apple, Microsoft cannot dictate the direction of hardware
>>> development and adoption. Instead, the Redmond Company has to play to
>>> the tune of both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures with the Windows
>>> operating system. While Windows Server 2008 will be the last server
>>> operating system for Microsoft,
>>
>> I think you mean "Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit server
>> operating system..."
>> - and may I add "thank goodness" to that for myself?
>>
>>> Windows Vista still supports both 32-bit and 63-bit platforms. Windows
>>> senior product manager Alex Heaton revealed that the word is still out
>>> on whether Windows Seven, the successor of Windows Vista will be
>>> exclusively 64-bit or not.
>>
>> <personal speculation>
>> They won't announce anything just yet due to the shrill screams of users
>> and, of course, to avoid shutting off an avenue before they have to, but
>> I think it will most certainly be 64-bit only.
>> </personal speculation>
>>
>>> Marrying 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on a single
>>> installer, Microsoft will be one step closer to Apple, as the
>>> Cupertino-based company will offer only 64-bit Leopard.
>>
>> Where did you get this information from? Because I think it's a load of
>> "Windows ME". OS X 10.5 will be, I believe, the first version of OS X
>> that can run fully 64-bit (iirc 10.4 does some patchwork pseudo-64 bit
>> stuff here and there when it can) but it will also run on 32-bit hardware
>> just fine, such as the PowerPC G4 and the Intel Core Duo (not-"core 2"
>> version) that power quite a lot of their still current hardware. The
>> current beta is aimed at "PowerPC G4 or higher" for sure.
>>
>
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:08:11 +0300, "Tiberius" <> wrote, by
way of <e1#>, in
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general -->

[snip]
>Windows Seven, the successor of Windows Vista
[snip]

..::::: sound of a large aquatic mammal banging its' head :::::
..::::: against the nearest hard-surface wall :::::


Jesus Harpo Christ; Vista is barely out of the gate & already its'
_successor_ is being mentioned? Rumor has it there are people still
running earlier builds of NT4, and why, it may be asked? Reliable,
competent OS; does what its' users ask, et cetera.

While those submerged in Microsoft culture may, perhaps by virtue of
that same submersion, see nothing "wrong" with UAC and the like, many,
many people not immersed in the Glory of Redmond appear to consider it
(UAC) as little more than glorified and sanitized hand-holding. "Users
should be seen, but not heard", perhaps?

Of course, I do not expect the shill-people to consider my above-stated
points as having much value. And, perhaps even _no_ value.

--

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have
heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because
it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in
your religious books. Do not believe in anything
merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been
handed down for many generations. But after observation
and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one
and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Buddha: Siddhartha Gautama, Indian Hindu Prince and
founder of Buddhism. Born 563 B.C. Died 483 B.C.

-------------

"Do not believe anything that you hear, and only believe
half the things you see." (author unknown)

feel better now?



Rich

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:05:54 -0700, "Rich" <> wrote,
by way of <>, in
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general -->

>feel better now?
>
>
>
>Rich

Yes; I just really needed to get some stuff off my flippers...

--

Life got you down? Want nothing than to curl up with your
[insert type of fav pet here], a glass of milk, and some
really great cookies?


http://preview.tinyurl.com/yrcz9v
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynzgas

"Tiberius" <> wrote in message
news:u5Z$...
> Robert I am just copy pasting the info from the link I have already
> provided in my post!.. this article is NOT mine!
>
> The link towards this information is the first thing you see in the post!

Yep got that, but I don't see where it mentions 10.5 being 64-bit only.