You mean, like Windows XP Professional x64 ?? No, XP 64 was more of a proof of concept offering -- and after a while it seemed to have been rejected by major OEM's as an option. I'm talking about a scenario where the only option provided is 64 bit. No 32 bit offering of the OS (or one not made available in the developed world -- sort of like the very entry level Vista SKU -- not available in the US).
Until they have a large % of their users on 64-bit, I seriously doubt they would risk doing that. Then again it may be their 'jump the shark' moment. They seem to be moving the other way if anything. Many of their recent utilities won't run on 64-bit and they sure are moving away from Vista logo being 64-bit compatible.
Barry, I was trying to be sarcastic, but I guess I failed. It just seems to me that MS has already been down the 64-bit-only mode and that was with x64. Since it isn't REALLY part of the XP product line, it seemed to me to qualify as an OS that comes in 64-bit versions only.
Well, if it had been me writing the message, I would have KNOWN it was sarcastic <smile>. The only part of the 'XP 64' product that got any traction (or frankly any real value) was the Server 2003 64 bit iteration. Since it supported >4G of RAM and since Microsoft Server products often would love the extra memory to work with, that offering made some real sense.
Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about 6-1/2 years, so Vista to a 64-bit only OS should probably occur sometime in the 2nd half of 2013 or 1st half of 2014.
Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about The thing is, the hardware for this is pretty much 'normal' today.
I think Microsoft has a DUTY OF CARE to customers. I fell into the same trap of reading the 10 reasons to buy XP64 and, seeing no commensurate list of reasons not ot, I bought it. I wish I hadn't, its been a nightmare for me. Althought the pdf whitepaper is useful, I still don't think this provides adequate communication to novices. On the main page, next to the 10 benefits, there should be a 10 problems ordinary users may face and what these problems mean in practice. As it was when I bought it a year ago and still is, IMO, a very misleading site. I wouldn't mind so much being told how ignorant and research-deficient I may be, but I feel misled. I finally decided to throw in the towel and I contacted MS waiving a white flag. I humbly requested a swap of my XP64 for XP32 and offered to pay handling & postage and to return my XP64 disk to them, and MS flatly refused to do so. Can you believe that? I feel frustrated, misled and that Microsoft has shown no duty of care to me. The last thing I will do is buy Vista 64.
Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market for several years, so the 32-bit CPU was pretty much 'normal' in 1995. The 80486 processor was released by Intel
How many consumer applications will benefit from 64-bit? With all the things I have open for working, I am not even close to stressed with 2gb memory. My 2yr old 3500+ is stressed in Vista64, not on XP X64 or X86 (which runs even more programs in background, that won't install on X64)
Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market Right, what is relatively new now is true dual core CPU's (different from the hyperthreading marketing version at the end of the Intel 478 development cycle). The two advantages I see in running a 64 bit OS are the extra memory handling and the additional capability to cordon off bad boy programs from the rest of the system. The thing is, most folks simply don't have the need to go that route -- at least not for now (or for the next year or more I'd suspect), so that the current trade offs (driver support, cost of memory, lack of programs to take advantage of 64 bit, inability to in place upgrade, etc.) tend to make Vista 64 something of a 'leading edge' option. For those that have the needs now, it can be the best choice. For those who want to dabble in the 64 bit environment on a 'test bed' system, Vista 64 is attractive as well. But would I recommend it to my small business and home user clients today -- nope. Heck, a lot of those users are running Intuit products -- so at the moment from what I've seen in the newsgroup, Vista 32 is problematic (not Microsoft's fault).
How many consumer applications will benefit from 64-bit? With all the Yeah, I can see that -- heck, this is my office computer and IT is running Windows 2K on an AMD XP2700 with 768M of RAM. I'll be swapping out with one of my existing bench setup workstations sometime this year for sure, but moving all the applications and customizations is something that I need to clear some time for (the data isn't a problem, its on my server). Then again, the data is on an old reliable NW 4.2 server, so Vista is not likely to be what I deploy for now (the new Novell Client for Vista will NOT support NW 4.x).
Disgusted, I agree with you 110%. As a matter of fact, the previous posters replying with the "read the fine prinit before buying" bs, probably work for microsoft. I brought this piece of crap OS to run on a Quad Opteron. This crap is worst then having DOS. I then brought Vista the crappy OS-X look alike. That piece of crap OS doesn't see 75% of the features of my $250 All In Wonder. Won't install or support my version of Cakewalk, and a number of other major apps. I'm totally disgusted with the poor and near useless quality of these products. No corporations are installing either of these products because they are so crappy. I don't want to hear about it's new, blah, blah, blah. If it's not ready, it should not be released. Especially for more money then the previous version and more restrictions. Anyone wishing to join me in a well jusified group refund procedure please write me at, Help send a message
Based on your grammar, it is no wonder you are unable to comprehend the money-back offer already available from Microsoft. That you didn't research the availability of drivers for your hardware is YOUR stupidity, and not the fault of the OS. Same with your software. Check to see if it has a Vista version, then decide to move to Vista without your software or stay with your current system. 64-bit products are niche products, and for now not for most.
Based on your poor grammar and lack of logic, you must be psychologically disadvantged, so I won't bother belittling you for being an idiot. Now, go back to your D&D game.
Based on your complete ignorance, you sound like you like blaming your own mistakes on someone else. Fact is it's the manufacturer's fault for not providing Vista-compatible drivers and software. So if you upgraded without doing research, it's simply your fault.
This would appear to be a reply to a different message than the one quoted. {?????} Tom MSMVP Windows Shell/User
Microsoft issues a 64 bit system that is dependent on software drivers from other manufacturers who may or may not support the system, and you insist it is not Microsoft's fault? It is clearly their fault or they would have canvassed the mfg's, insisted on stable drivers then loaded them into the OS.
