[Messerschmitt]

I was wondering if this windows 7 will also come in the 32 and 64 bit. And if yes, will the 32 as well will mean you won't be getting more than 3.5gb of RAM?
If yes again, then why even bother. Why can't they just concentrate on 64 bit type, and then everyone from software to games will concentrate in being compatible with the 64 bit type platform.

I hate how I can't have more than 3.5 gb ram in win xp since if you go with the 64 bit version 90% of your programs won't work.

Btw, is this the case with vista too? is the 64 bit a lot less compatible with programs than vista 32bit?

[CoffeeFiend]

Messerschmitt, on Jan 11 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

I was wondering if this windows 7 will also come in the 32 and 64 bit

Yes. AFAIK it's the last one that will come out with a 32 bit version.

Messerschmitt, on Jan 11 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

And if yes, will the 32 as well will mean you won't be getting more than 3.5gb of RAM?

Yep. In fact, probably less... Depends on your vid card's memory and other such factors.

Messerschmitt, on Jan 11 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

If yes again, then why even bother.

No point IMO.

Messerschmitt, on Jan 11 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

if you go with the 64 bit version 90% of your programs won't work.

I have yet to find a program that doesn't actually work on Vista x64. The only real issue, is if you're using 20 year old 16 bit apps straight from the MS-DOS era (which won't run).

[JatinBeniwal]

In actual intel releases EMT 64 cpu that can capable to run 64 bit but they are not actual 64 bit cpu. I think after windows 8 there is no more 32 bit releases then the question between 64 & 128 bit processing. also stoping 32 bit means dump of lot of processing power means about 60% of harware in a developing country like INdia. it cost too much. Also there is more problem related to ewaste.

[knowitall_wannabe]

MSDN's released both 32 and 64 betas but there hasn't been anything noted on whether 32 recognizes 4GB or more. I would guess they could develop 32 to recognize more but again, that's just a guess. Maybe I should do a search around here to see if that possibility could be clarified better since I'm new to this forum.

[CoffeeFiend]

JatinBeniwal, on Jan 11 2009, 07:42 AM, said:

then the question between 64 & 128 bit processing

No. 128 bit hardware & software isn't anywhere near in sight. We've had 32 bit x86 CPUs as of 23 years ago, and we just hit the barrier where it's not enough anymore (4GB memory for the main part). Even if the current x64 CPUs only use 48 bits for addresses (which allows for 256 terabytes of RAM), and that Windows only uses 44 bits (that still gives us a 16TB limit), it's still enough RAM for the foreseeable future. I don't know about you, but I'm thinking the day I will have 16 sticks of 16384GB each (or only 4 sticks, of 65536GB each) on my motherboard are pretty far still. And even then, we won't need a 128 bit CPU, they'll just have to start using more address pins. Making full use of all of them will allow for 17,179,869,184 GBs of RAM "only" (yes, that's over 17 thousands of millions of GBs!) Then once that's not sufficient, we'll need 128 bit CPUs to address more (assuming we don't use anything sort of like PAE). I'd say we're good for another 50 years or so. Chances are, lots of us won't be alive by the time 128 bit processors become mainstream.

JatinBeniwal, on Jan 11 2009, 07:42 AM, said:

stoping 32 bit means dump of lot of processing power means about 60% of harware in a developing country like INdia

No, it just means the old boxes with "legacy" hardware will keep using their old OS.

knowitall_wannabe, on Jan 11 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

there hasn't been anything noted on whether 32 recognizes 4GB or more

There's no need to either. It's just the way the x86 kernel of Windows works/is designed.

knowitall_wannabe, on Jan 11 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

they could develop 32 to recognize more

They could try to spend a LOT of valuable time working on that (e.g. using PAE), and then get companies to write all new drivers that would work with it, and probably need a fair amount of software to be rewritten too... Which is kind of pointless when we already have a new, better architecture that already solves all that and more, and that pretty much all CPUs sold these days are 64 bit (all AMD CPUs sold since the Athlon64 back in 2003 -- 6 years ago; which will be more like 8 by the time Win 7 is out, and Intel not too long after). It would also be way more problematic to get everything moved to a significantly changed x86 platform than using the existing WOW64 (which actually works quite well). 32 bit is the new 16 bit. Kind of reminds me of the Win32s days...

This post has been edited by crahak: 11 January 2009 - 10:30 PM

[gamehead200]

[ Moved. ]

[Idontwantspam]

@knowitall_wannabe: The limitation is in the physical hardware itself. A 32-bit OS will not be using 4 GB RAM no matter what the developers do. (This isn't entirely true... there are ways to make use of the extra RAM, but it can't be used the way it normally is)

For Microsoft, it makes a lot of sense to keep offering 32-bit operating systems. There are many corporate environments out there which skipped Vista entirely and are banking on Windows 7. While most of these folks are probably using primarily processors which support 64-bit operating systems, some are not, which presents a potential revenue loss for Microsoft. Also, since 64-bit windows doesn't run 16-bit apps, and many enterprise systems still rely on ancient 16-bit apps, they would lose even more potential business there.

[cluberti]

knowitall_wannabe, on Jan 11 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

MSDN's released both 32 and 64 betas but there hasn't been anything noted on whether 32 recognizes 4GB or more. I would guess they could develop 32 to recognize more but again, that's just a guess. Maybe I should do a search around here to see if that possibility could be clarified better since I'm new to this forum.

As spam said, 32bit addressing means you can only "address" 4096MB of system memory. PAE allows the *usage* of memory above the 4GB barrier, but only by "mapping" that memory into a location under the 4096 barrier, meaning the memory can be used for data storage, but not code execution. Also, memory management for RAM "mapped" into a PAE window is the responsibility *entirely* of the app doing the mapping, making it an undertaking to actually do properly. Since it would take rewriting all the 32bit apps that we expect to be around for awhile yet to get into using PAE to get usage of >4GB RAM, why not rewrite these to 64bit anyway? If you're going to have to rewrite anyway to address >4GB RAM, it makes sense to do it as an x64 app, rather than a PAE 32bit app (with all the limitations and requirements on a PAE app that won't exist as an x64 app, like having to do your own memory management or not being able to execute code in the PAE window, or the memory management overhead hit in mapping and unmapping these regions over and over, etc).

[nitinagarwal1988]

guys if we have systems that are capable of 64bit processing then what's the need of using 32bit??
n if you have board that support 4GB ram it have definitely 64Bit architecture CPU then whats the need of using 32Bit OS? use 64Bit one n matter of app support............x64 based windows provide simulation to 32bit apps n they work fine on 64bit's n as above said win7 is last iteration of windows which comes in 32bit also.......the need of faster processing is increase day by day and it is only fullfilled by 64bit architecture based hardware as well as softwares.......the developers can't stuck on the old one they have to develop the new and better possibilites......that's all about if we can.......then why not???

[Idontwantspam]

1) Why the double post?
2) Could you please try to spell things out in whole words with proper punctuation? It makes it much, much easier to understand what you're talking about
3) Nobody's arguing that if you have x64 capable hardware that would benefit from a 64-bit OS that you should use it. The reason why MS should keep selling 32-bit OSes is explained above in this very thread.

[cluberti]

Double-post fixed.

[xtravagan]

Hello,

I would just like to add, that the biggest reason for keeping 32Bit at this very moment is likely the netbook market.

Win7 is actually targeted to work on Netbooks so that they can finally phase out XP (which is a big win as there is alot more security issues with it to maintain).

There will also likely (it is announced at least) be incarnations of the Win7 chopped down kernel in an embedded environment (Like XP Embedded before that)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/e...ec-release.mspx

This is all good, because it forces Microsoft to focus on the foot print of the OS. This is likely something they don't mind either, because they got all the nedded security foundations into Vista, so now they have time again to focus on the essentials.

[GTK66]

MS has stated that 25% of Windows 7 sold will be of the 64 Bit flavor. That is what I will get.

[xtravagan]

GTK66, on Jan 24 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

MS has stated that 25% of Windows 7 sold will be of the 64 Bit flavor. That is what I will get.

Actually what they have stated is that Vista currently is being sold at that rate. So 25% of all Vista are 64bit, Windows 7 will likely be higher. This will very likely accelerate the first half of this year as OEMs hopefully will start pushing preinstalled 64bit machines.

This post has been edited by xtravagan: 24 January 2009 - 08:19 PM