Login:
Password:

Windows Server 2008 'The Last 32-bit Operating System'

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 16, 2007, 7:58 PM

WinHEC Big WhiteLOS ANGELES - During this morning keynote sessions at WinHEC 2007, Microsoft general manager for Windows Server Bill Laing officially proclaimed Windows Server 2008 "the last 32-bit operating system" the company will ever release, for either servers or clients.

"We're in the middle of a transition to 64-bit computing," Laing told this morning's audience. It was inevitable that this would happen, he went on, but now's as good a time as any given the fact that memory prices are continuing to fall. Historically the transitions to 16-bit and 32-bit computing were difficult to make, he said - perhaps he could have called them excruciating. "But once we get through it, you look back and realize all the benefits, and realize it was the right thing for the industry.

"Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit operating system that we'll produce," Laing then pronounced. "Post-2008, we will transition to 64-bit. Many Microsoft products are becoming 64-bit only today, because they're realizing the benefits of 64-bit computing. Exchange Server 2007, Windows Compute Cluster Server, and Windows Server Virtualization are all 64-bit only today, because they give significant benefits."

As testers begin installing Windows Server 2008 Beta 3, Laing noted, the company's noting a higher percentage of 64-bit adopters.

But what does this mean for operating system support down the road? If Laing's pronouncement holds true, even the Windows Server editions designated for home users (don't forget "Home Server" is a server) will be 64-bit only. That won't be a problem for system designers, though it may be a factor for individuals looking to build their own home servers on the cheap, perhaps using Gigabyte's upcoming Micro DTX form factor motherboards.

The roadmap for Windows Server as demonstrated by Microsoft's Bill Laing at WinHEC Day 2.

Future extensions to the Windows Server product line will also be 64-bit only apparently, including the new medium-sized business edition coming early next year, code-named "Centro," and its small business edition "Cougar" later in 2008. Currently the roadmap shows the R2 edition of WS2K8 showing up in 2009.

But service packs are also "inevitable." They're not considered releases (some reporters here asked the question a few times just to make sure), but rather extensions. They will have to support 32-bit installations already in the field.

Add a Comment (36 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By YHILEMROBLES@hotmail.com

edited May 13, 2008 - 11:10 AM

Please, I want more information for the last window server

Score: 0

By frankie99

edited Mar 7, 2008 - 12:46 AM

on the windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.1 was a only 16 bit system and when you get to win nt 3.1 to 4.0 and windows 95 and 98 and me that is the combnation of 16 and 32 bit system when we get to windows me it is the last 16 bit system ever when when we got to windows 2000 it is a all 32 bit system so is windows xp and the windows server 2003 is the first 64 bit operatering system and so is windows xp 64bit edition so is the windows xp media centre edition and windows xp professional 64 bit system and windows vista both run both on 32 bit and 64 bit when we got to windows server 2008 that is the last 32 bit operating system ever it both runs on 32bit and 64 bit when we get into the microsoft windows 7 in the future it will be all 64 bit system the end.

Score: 0

By vampire75

posted May 23, 2007 - 8:22 AM

where the download link of windwos server 2008 beta version ???

Score: 0

By dev2501

edited Jun 30, 2007 - 3:31 PM

http://www.google.co.uk/...+server+beta+3&meta=

Score: 0

By vampire75

posted May 23, 2007 - 8:21 AM

im testing this operating system

Score: 0

By wadedesk

posted May 18, 2007 - 9:39 AM

The computer hardware industry is in real need of a shot-in-the-arm with a mature computer market. MS with it's strong hardware partnerships is once again going to move the industry forward with buyers screaming. Now I know that there is no need to do any computer software/hardware upgrades, because I'm going to be buying/building a completely new system in a few years. Thanks again MS for taking the lead and pronouncing what all us plain folks need in our ordinary daily computer life.

Score: 0

By pforbes

edited May 18, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Who is supposed to buy it? In most cases there's no real need, in many others there are cheaper and easier solutions. Many users have already forgotten MS expensive solutions long ago. MS should remember what happened to the Concorde plane: the aircraft got so advanced that it was no business and had to stop flying.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted May 17, 2007 - 7:02 PM

bullcrap!

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

posted May 17, 2007 - 1:48 PM

The last 32-bit WINDOWS operating system.

Score: 0

By GodKing_Peon

posted May 17, 2007 - 2:07 PM

Windows Server Team Manager Bill Laing says,

""Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit operating system that we'll produce,"

He's speaking for the Server Team. If anyone were to make the announcement of the absolute last 32-bit OS Microsoft as a whole would develop, it would be Bill himself.

There are conflicting reports about Vienna, but nothing official has been announced regarding it.

Score: 0

By CMSTech

posted May 18, 2007 - 4:07 PM

umm are you sure? You cut the story off to soon, the first paragraph reads:

"LOS ANGELES - During this morning keynote sessions at WinHEC 2007, Microsoft general manager for Windows Server Bill Laing officially proclaimed Windows Server 2008 "the last 32-bit operating system" the company will ever release, for either servers or clients."

The last 5 words say it all, "... for either servers or clients".

Score: 0

By Slavic

posted May 17, 2007 - 9:49 AM

Excellent, long-awaited decision! But...

Microsoft, where are new x64 applications? Where is Office 2007 64-bit?

Sorry, I forgot that I will be able to buy the new miraculous 64-bit Office 2008 (2009, etc.) and be happy again, as always. Excuse me.

Score: 0

By Araxen

posted May 17, 2007 - 9:19 AM

The sooner the world moves to 64bit the better. Both Server and Clients.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited May 17, 2007 - 7:55 AM

Man, I dunno. For servers, I can see going to 64 bit. But for clients? Maybe not right now.

Glad I have a good combo chip - the AMD Athlon 32bit/64bit chip. Best of both worlds.

I do wish we would have a choice though. I don't like to be pressured to upgrade.

Score: 0

By GodKing_Peon

posted May 17, 2007 - 9:14 AM

Right now won't be until at least '09. You've got all the choice in the world when Vienna finally comes around (if it's only 64-bit, which we've gotten conflicting information on). Stick with Vista, or upgrade. But really, byt hat point it should matter too much.

...we'll all be using Linux or Mac anyway by then, right? ;>

Score: 0

By funkervogt

posted May 17, 2007 - 8:51 AM

Well, they aren't really telling you that you have to upgrade RIGHT NOW, x64 has been around since '04 and most CPUs and boards have been shipping with the technology since like last year... We all know MS is paving the road to 64-bit and moving both clients and workstations up to 64bit is a really good idea. MS wants to unify the kernels for both clients and servers, and eliminating 32-bit support on both platforms is a great way to do that easier. Also, if you're worried about the next client OS release- if it's anything like vista (and under the new ms stragegy I think it is) you probably won't be upgrading for another 5 years... in which case, even some "7 year old computers" will be able to run the next client OS.

Score: 0

By dizzy_davidh

edited May 17, 2007 - 5:46 AM

The article's key quote is from Microsoft general manager for Windows Server Bill Laing.

He is more than likely referring to 'server' operating systems and not 'workstation operating systems such as Vista.

I very much doubt he has been given permission to make any such broad speaking statements for Microsoft as a whole and that this article is nothing more that a comment taken our of context

Score: 0

By dev2501

edited Jun 30, 2007 - 3:46 PM

I have downloaded windows server 2008 beta 3 and attempted to run this on my existing 32bit platform and it simply refuses with an error:

*ERROR: is for a machine type other than the current machine.... *

my machine is windows server 2003 SP2

I tested on windows XP Home machine and it says the file setup.exe is a windows vista file refusing to launch the program with the same error.....!!!

Have I downloaded a 64bit version in error or is the download (beta3) a 64bit edition? (32bit was the only one available at the time of writing) or am i missing somthing?

mal

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 17, 2007 - 4:41 AM

Thanks for being a little more in-depth about this after the last article's one sentence.

Score: 0

By SMFulton3

posted May 17, 2007 - 11:31 AM

Well, keep in mind, Paul, that with many of these articles on the speeches, I'm producing the text as it happens. I wrote that last sentence and published the story about 45 seconds after Laing had spoken it. I knew its significance; that's why I went back a few hours later and recapped.

-SF3

Score: 0

By adavis159

posted May 17, 2007 - 3:25 AM

I have a 64-bit cpu but I use the 32-bit version of vista because 64-bit support for drivers and games is still pretty weak, simply forcing everyone to use the 64-bit version would solve that, just look at the weak driver support win2k had, until XP forced companies to make drivers for the NT kernel

Score: 0

By DeadFly

posted May 17, 2007 - 11:48 AM

I think it's just Vista support in general. I've had issues on 32 and 64 bit. My biggest gripe so far with Vista is that it seems to have issues dealing with some apps that weren't designed for it; it seems that when some apps toss up a dialog asking you for confirmation on something Vista sees it as a fatal error and does that thing where it "frosts" the screen and prompts you to close it and look for a solution or just close it. It really pisses me off when I can't install something cause it's asking me if it's OK to continue and I can't click OK because Vista thinks it's crashed.

Score: 0

By GodKing_Peon

posted May 17, 2007 - 12:27 PM

Never had that issue. Are you installing these programs with admin rights? (right-click on the installer, go to the compatibility tab, and set it to run as admin)

I've been doing that since I bought it and I haven't had an issue with installs.

Score: 0

By daq

posted May 17, 2007 - 12:19 PM

Ever heard of alt-tab?

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted May 17, 2007 - 4:30 AM

Nearly all Vista compatible hardware will work with 64-bit Vista just fine. It's very rare to find a manufacturer that makes 32-bit Vista drivers but not 64-bit Vista drivers unless it's some no name vendor.

Score: 0

By RejZoR

posted May 17, 2007 - 1:11 AM

I hope they'll remove that dreaded idiotic enforced driver signing for x64 OS. 3/4 ppl use beta drivers and forcing WHQL as only option is pathetic. Thats another reason why i'm using 32bit version of Vista. I don't want some big company forcing me with something. I want to decide on my own what i want to do with drivers.
So if 64bit will be the only edition, get rid of this crap and i might use it.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 17, 2007 - 4:39 AM

An option to turn it on and off would be best. Just like UAC has.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted May 17, 2007 - 4:33 AM

Yeah, just what everyone needs. Manufacturers releasing unsigned and potentially unstable drivers that crash computers. If manufacturers can get away with unsigned drivers then they will cut corners and release half baked drivers that will give everyone major headaches.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

edited May 17, 2007 - 10:07 AM

The problem with your statement is that:

A) WHQL has to be submitted to microsoft for testing (which means longer times between fixes in drivers, and I can guarantee we've all seen "whql" drivers malfunction, the cert means NOTHING, trust me...)
B) You have to PAY microsoft to test/approve/stamp them (how's that for a revenue source?)
and
C) This would cut out homegrown drivers from tweakers, and some software that microsoft would have to "approve" that uses a built in driver to do it's work.

This would effectively be the end of innovation on some aspects of windows computing.

How's THAT for leveraging monopoly power for you?

Score: 0

By GodKing_Peon

posted May 17, 2007 - 11:02 AM

Your statements have a few issues as well.

A) I've never seen a WHQL driver fail. If you have proof to the contrary that was not related ot other unsigned hardware, feel free to submit it.

B) $500. I believe that's per device, not driver/version. Any company that balks at that isn't worth my business or anyone elses.

C) ??? "The tweakers" will find ways around it. Always have, always will.

This would effectively be the end of innovation on some aspects of windows computing.

What innovation do you see coming from unsigned drivers? Have the Omega Drivers for ATi pushed the ATi drivers forward in terms of quality or stability? Nope. Instability and incompatibility does not equal innovation.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted May 17, 2007 - 2:57 PM

and what about home-made devices or devices built for a specific use in a corporate environment ?

will people writing drivers for those have to pay microsoft, or maybe will they have to run Windows in checked mode all the time ?

Score: 0

By GodKing_Peon

posted May 17, 2007 - 4:36 PM

They will fork over the piddly $500, or they will find a work-around. If that work-around happens to be Linux or a previous version of Windows, so be it.

Microsoft Operating Systems are required to run on a great deal of hardware. This is how they have chosen to make sure the drivers for those devices aren't interfering with eachother, taking shortcuts, or risking the stability of the OS itself.

If you can come up with a better way for that to happen that still allows MS to retain control of the stability of their systems and not cost them a fortune in providing support to manufacturers, I am sure they would love to hear it.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted May 17, 2007 - 12:48 AM

Too late-- vista shoulda NEVER've come out in 64 bit.

Score: 0

By Jason Cox

edited May 16, 2007 - 10:46 PM

"Considering how many people use the 32-bit version of Vista. I hope Microsoft isn't serious."

Considering how many people buy OEM PCs with no knowledge of whether its x86 or x64 is more like it. The consumer doesnt care as long as it works and x64 does indeed work.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted May 16, 2007 - 9:33 PM

Get the driver situation in order, where manufacturers CANNOT GET WHQL until they release a 64 along with the 32. Lamers.

Score: 0

By pipdipchip

posted May 16, 2007 - 9:13 PM

Considering how many people use the 32-bit version of Vista. I hope Microsoft isn't serious. It's unclear if they were referring to Microsoft server products or all Microsoft operating systems. It sounds like the latter to me. I'm not sure what the official numbers are, but I'd say that at least 80-90% of Vista users are running the 32-bit version. I just hope Microsoft doesn't try to push 64-bit on us too fast.

Score: 0