Hardware manufacturers need a kick in the a**. If a hardware product is compatible with 32-bit Windows XP there is no excuse for not having a 64-bit driver.

Hardware companies have had all the time in the world to write 64-bit drivers. Instead, if someone requests a 64-bit hardware driver the response from the hardware manufacturer is usually "Use 32-bit Windows XP". Atheros (who is the second largest supplier of wireless network chipsets) has actually stated they don't have any idea when they will have 64-bit drivers for their 802.11 a/b/g chipsets. Other hardware companies refuse to make 64-bit drivers because they seem to think that 64-bit Windows XP is as popular on the desktop as Linux or FreeBSD.

As for software incompatibilities, the only applications that won't run are 32-bit apps that use 16-bit installers.

How dumb.

What Microsoft is doing is further limiting how many people will upgrade their servers and Exchange boxes.

I don't like being forced into something just because someone says so.

I'm perfectly happy running XP Pro on a 1.5GHz box or even a 733MHz box.

64Bit can go get bent.

Daft - no other word for it - daft.

Does that mean I will have MS intellipoint drivers for XP 64 soon? etc :-)

Going 64 Bit is a good move, and im glad microsoft are making it manditory. Everyone who has a pentium has been 64 bit anyway, its only now the address bus is going 64 in a natual move in the advance of speed.

If they were forcing 32 bit then im sure the whiners would complain about that too, and rightly so ...

"Everyone who has a pentium has been 64 bit anyway..."

External frequency, yes, as Pentium can do two instructions per clock cycle (two 32-bit processes in one Hz), but still only 32-bit capable processes. SSE introduced 36-bit page file extensions if I recall, but even that "cheated". (EDIT: I misinterpreted some of the information someone gave me, so my explaination is incorrect here. I am leaving it only for completeness): Of course if you want to be really technical about it, most 64 bit processors only "process" up to 48-bit processes, but at the speed of 64-bit processing.

Remember that bits are just 1's and 0's, so 2 bits could hold 4 values, 3 bits can hold 8 values, etc. 32-bit processes can hold 4 billion values if I recall (think of 32 bit color mode). 64 bits, or 2^64 power would hold 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 values. However 48 bits is somewhere in-between, and is easier to implement. Remember, the core of the processor could easily be changed to handle true 64-bit processes but nothing needs that yet! (also the more bits capable of being processed means more RAM requirements, so it's a good thing for now)

Now one thing Intel's Itanium 2 DOES have is 56-bit process crunching capability, which no other "64 bit" processor currently has. Here endeth the lesson (I'm way off topic now).

Wow. I didn't know we didn't have true 64-bit processors. I've been educated.

Actually, reviewing information, my previous post is not entirely correct. The ADDRESSABLE MEMORY of early 64-bit processors (original Itanium and early RISC 64-bit cpus) was 40-bits, allowing only up to 128 gigabytes of RAM. Currently the only CPU capable of 4 terabytes is the Itanium II with 56-bit addressable memory. They are actually capable of processing 64-bit long integers and the like. I was wrong...see http://techreport.com/re...q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=2 for details.

*phew*

I almost changed my entire outlook on the 64-bit computing world. That was close.

(yes I'm joking)

It's about time somebody did it. God knows I'm tired of sitting on my quite software disabled XP64. Now I know how Mac users must feel.

What do you mean by that? I'm running 64-bit computing on my 2GHZ G5 with tiger that natively supports 64-bit processers and works with 32-bit G3 or G4 processors. Are you talking about how mac users have been waiting for tiger to come out for the 64-bit processing that panther didn't really use?

Not at all...I was talking about the fact that I can't find very much software that works in native 64 bit, sure some programs work in the 32 bit emulation, but much of stuff still fails to work at optimum, compared to being on XP 32bit; and some of my peripherals (printer, camera, tv tuner and remote control) to be exact also don't work in XP64.
This is reminiscent of Mac computers which have nowhere close to the abundance of software or games offered for the PC....thus my comment about knowing how Mac users must feel. Hell, I was a Mac user for about a year, so it's kinda like that....except it wasn't my main PC, so it didn't matter much. I want to run XP 64 as my main system, but it doesn't make sense until software/hardware/driver development teams start writing stuff or 64bit or a 32/64 bit env.

Looks like a suicide move to me, unless the server software has something to really convince the enterprises to plop down {insert huge number here} to buy, test, and deploy this.

When will Microsoft learn that catering to the masses AND those on the bleeding edge is the best way to go?

I'm not sure where the news is. MS said 2007 was going to usher in 64-bit. Now people are surprised? I understand the quirkiness in the scheduling, but to the commentors below that say "32-bit all the way", might I wonder if they were Windows 3.1 proponents when Chicago/95 came out?

And heres why most of the world uses Apache Open Source server software. Cause Apache aren't forcing you to do anything you don't want to.

32-bit forever ^_^

And that's why everyone still runs Apache version 1.3 despite Apache 2.0 being out for ages ;)

Please are lazy, so sometimes you need to give them a push in order to benefit the masses.

I wasn't aware that Apache 2 has left Beta yet...

But regardless. 64-bit doesn't benifit anyone cept Micorosft... and probably Intel and AMD...

"Please are lazy, so sometimes you need to give them a push in order to benefit the masses."

Sure, if security updates are freely available, you might encourage sysadmins to upgrade patches etc (which is not equivalent to forcing them, of course). In my opinion you can never force them to, you could however warn them that a lack of relevant updates makes them responsible for eventual bugs / exploits which have been fixed in the new release / patch / update / whatever.

Forcing people to update their hardware seems to me like an even bigger step in the wrong direction. If I want to use the same server (and software) for years and years, that should be a possibility, though of course it might not all too wise ;).

It left beta a long time ago :) 2.1 is in beta now.

Not so. Those with very large databases are one example. There is also graphic rendering and scientific experiments such as data modeling and other simulations.

That's more profit for MS selling (mandating) an upgrade. But a lot of networks have applications integrated that are not going to be available in 64 bit any time soon, if at all. I hope they will make sure that the OS is backwardly compatible. For example will Peachtree accounting be compatible with the new 64 bit version? Anyway, I think I've made my point.

32-bit applications SHOULD run on 64-bit systems without problems. That's not to say they will, however. But by 2007, I'd hope most software developers would ensure compatibility, even if they're not 64-bit apps.

That's an issue I have with 64bit Linux, 32bit apps are horrible in either they don't look right run right or you have to chroot an entire distribution just to get them to go.

Hopefully it's fixed soon, they should learn how to mix 32 and 64bit libs like professionals. :-)

the problem with a LOT of "32 bit software" is that only parts of it are 32 bit, other parts are still stuck in 16 or 8 bit. sorta like when win95 first came out.. wooo 32 bit... it was a 32 bit shell extension running on top of a 16 bit base os.
Having got in on the upgrade program when cd was like.. what was it.. 10 or 20 bux? I am glad I didnt pay full price for this lemon. xp 32 bit ran faster on my 64 bit processor, had better driver and application compatibility and all my peripherials worked flawlessly.
Living on a fixed income this was extremely important to me... My computer died and I needed a computer to keep in touch with family I couldnt "call" on the other side of the continent... I saved for a few months, got my mb and cpu and around the same time my cheap copy of xp64 arrived from ms. I originally installed the 32 bit xp I had and after a while curiosity got the best of me and I did a wipe and reinstall of the 64 bit... worst mistake I ever made.
This app requires windows xp (I got it but the app doesnt see that), this app doesnt run in this version of windows ( >.< ) this device isnt supported in windows xp 64 bit ( I LIKE my gravis game pad and lexmark printer - they both work extremely well for me) this bla bla bla and so on - you get the drift.
Anddddd since as part of the upgrade program that got me the cheap cd from ms... my old copy of xp 32 bit's coa is no longer valid so I am stuck with what I have and no printer and no game pad, and VERY limited choices for av software.. extremely disappointed

I do wish they gave it just a little more time...but remember MS is talking about apps/OSes in 2007 and later, so Windows Vista and Vista "Longhorn" Server will still be available in 32-bit. Windows 2000 dropped any and all support questions about running 16-bit apps (it still uses the old WoW.exe from NT 4.0 to 'try', but no support is given by MS), I didn't hear much complaining...

Not that big a deal, in the grand scheme of things---2007 if you simply must have the latest and greatest Exchange version (and that's assuming the release date doesn't slip) and 2009 for the post-Longhorn OS. I mean really, it's difficult at best to run today's software on hardware that's 4 years old.

This may help AMD a bit, especially if Intel's dual core 64-bit Itanium gets delayed any further.

"I mean really, it's difficult at best to run today's software on hardware that's 4 years old."

Well, Windows XP itself is 4 years old, so it's not that hard ;)

I can run XP and all applications perfectly on a P3 866 from 2001. That's what was available when the OS came out.

well... ok, I guess I'm glad to see a strong stance on 64bit computing, but before they can take such a stance, they need to work with the hardware manufacturers to actually start supporting the 64 bit OS's.

The hardware and software companies need to work together on this transition

This is exactly what they're trying to do.
Software/Driver development teams are VERY, VERY lazy....sometimes the only way to push an industry is to semi-force an upgrade. MS already tried by allowing many people to go 64 for almost free - but that hasn't pushed driver developers 1 bit. By making a mandatory push to 64, they'll be forcing these companies to adopt 64bit. Even the major brands are lazy - it's not like it takes 6 months to push some new drivers for a product, it's really just that they don't 'need' to. It just sucks that I won't be able to run my XP64 till maybe around Vista's release, and ofcourse by that time I'll just get Vista. Oh well.

Early adopters and 'Screwed' are synonymous nowadays.

Luckily, I had 3 copies of XP, if i'd given up my only copy I'd be pretty sad right now.

Well, there's a reason why they're doing this that the article above doesn't bother to mention. Specifically, Exchange 12 is cited to have a 75% drop in processor demand when running on 64bit Windows. The benefit is a crap-load more users and it supports the voice-call-in email-to-speech features... in multiple languages. Yes, that's right folks, you can actually call up your E12 server and it will read your emails to you... not just Mobile Internet access.

The other thing the article doesn't mention is that it will continue to co-exist with Exchange Server 2003 in a mixed 32bit environment.

So before any of you get your dockers and khakis in a twist over this announcement, there's a very good reason for it.

In any case, in case you didn't notice, AMD and Intel are both pushing their 64bit systems these days anyway... get used to it, because over the next few years, 64bit is finally going to hit mainstream.

Source of Info: http://blogs.technet.com.../15/e12_64bit_only.aspx

From that link: "I also unserstand that during the betas, there will be both a 32 bit and 64 bit version of Exchange 12 so you can compare the performance gains."

So why not release it if it's going to be built and tested? Sure, performance may not be as good, but that doesn't mean some customers may want the 32-bit version, even if it's slower.

Bah, so like in 2009 they will only support 64 bit servers?

So if you haven't changed your server to 64 bit by 2009 then you are never going too, so I can't see that it's much of an issue.

huh? They have to be kidding. Usually I like MS' releases. But if this is the future of MS there are going to ALOT of pissed off companies out there. I have a dozen servers that are dual P4 3.6 Xeon processors that are SOL now.

Let's see what customer demand really brings to market...Damn MS

You don't think that in order to run the newest release of whatever in 5 years time you will probably have to upgrade anyways?

For those buying new servers it isn't a big deal since all the new chips have x86-64 or EMT64. And for the older systems they probably are either going to be replaced by then or you won't bother upgrading the OS anyways. I am not going to spend $8000 on licenses and such and not the $3000 extra for entirely new kit.

The thing that I am suprised by is that they announced it now. Probably would be better in a year or two when all chips sold are 64bit anyways

Yeah, and my Commodore 64 is REALLY screwed! Seriously, this is a no-brainer. If a company had a press release today, announcing that they were dropping support for 8-bit processors, you'd probably laugh and ask what idiots were still supporting 8-bit anyway. There was never any doubt that Microsoft would drop support for 32-bit, the only questions are WHEN and WHICH products. In this case, they're clearly talking about server products which are either focused on high-end scalability OR (as with Small Business Server) are normally sold preloaded on new hardware.

I'll go as far as to break the news that Microsoft will be dropping support for 64-bit processors. Again, the only question is when.

Scuse?

Did they say they were going to force you to upgrade? If your current hardware is suffucient, there's no need to even be thinking about upgrades.

Why does this piss you off? Unless you're looking to upgrade hardware anyway, this is a non-issue.

The current generation of Server OS/applications should be more than enough to last you until a hardware upgrade is required.

I understand all of your comments, but since 64 drivers aren't plentiful yet, alot of companies are still purchasing 32 bit servers. I want to be able to take advantage of the next exchange and LH server however I am being forced to upgrade to do so. The comment in the article says it all "I do find strange that Longhorn Server will be 32-bit and 64-bit and not exclusively 64-bit until the "R2" release".

If they would have started with Longhorn Servers as 64 bit only and not changed it as beta testing is hitting R2 it would be different. I am sure people, like me, saw the 32 bit version of Longhorn server and thought everything was OK, but to have that yanked out after beta testing it...that is just plain mean.

I mean just pick your horse and ride it MS, if you are only going to offer 64 bit versions, leave the gate with that stance, don't change it half way through.

What servers can you buy that are 32-bit only these days?

And Longhorn R2 release, isn't beta 2. It's the next version of windows server after Longhorn.

You can always run Lunix on it.

heh

http://lng.sourceforge.net/

If they are still buying 32-bit servers, then whoever is doing the buying doesn't know what they're doing. At the non-profit where I work as a network admin, I purchased 64-bit hardware (Opteron) and then brought the 32-bit version of Small Business Server 2003 with Software Assurance ($24 for Standard Edition and $60 for Premium Edition for non-profits). 32-bit runs fine and I can move to 64-bit when the time is right. The extra cost (for the hardware) wasn't really all that much and it'll pay for itself (think ROI).