Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?
Bogey Man wrote:
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:eSgHo9PSIHA.5404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> John Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> ...the server area which due to the larger memory requirements has
>>> substantially adopted 64-bit and if I recall, server 2008 will be the
>>> last one available in a 32-bit version. I suspect that it will be
>>> many years before the consumer market has a need for 64-bit.
>>
>>
>> Don't be so sure, game makers are always pushing the envelope. Also
>> many home users do video editing or run other memory demanding
>> applications (like PhotoShop), I think it won't be all that long that
>> the 4GB barrier will be busted by many home users. Nowadays most new
>> 32-bit machines ship with 2GB of RAM, anything in the order of 3GB to
>> 4GB on 32-bit is pretty well a waste because of the hardware memory
>> address space requirements so 64-bit for home users may be coming
>> faster than we think.
>>
>> John
>
>
> I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64
> bit versions of Vista. They should have just put out 64 bit versions and
> announce at the same time that 32 bit operating systems would not be
> supported after a certain date.
Oh, I don't think that they did! Microsoft relies on a large
established base of third party software and hardware to sell its new
operating systems. By going exclusively 64-bit they would have
alienated many customers and they would have had a barrage of criticism
and complaints, it would have backfired on them. When Windows 95 was
launched, and when pure 32-bit NT was designed a conscious decision was
made to make all possible attempts to keep these operating systems
compatible with MS-DOS programs or, in the case of NT, to incorporate a
Virtual Engine to run the old 16-bit legacy applications. Microsoft
knew that a large base of installed 16-bit applications existed and that
launching an operating system that couldn't run these old applications
was a recipe for disaster, it was a marketing/design decision that
ultimately turned out to be key to the wide acceptance and success of
the Windows operating system.
If Microsoft had announced the end of 32-bit support with Vista it would
have been a marketing disaster. It may not be important to you or many
other users but I assure you that many will be on 32-bit for a while
yet, that applies especially to the small/medium size business market.
Contrary to what some might think most companies don't have unlimited
amounts of money available to spend and even more surprising to some
folks, computers and software are not the first place or most important
place for these small firms to put their money. The need for financing
of income producing assets usually comes before IT expenditures. In
some of these small firms a considerable amount of money may have
already been invested in software and hardware, spending even more to
replace that software or hardware for no good reason other than "things
run on 64-bit now" is simply not an option for most companies. The
switch to 64-bit is underway and it is unavoidable but I think that if
you had $50,000 of software or a $10,000 plotter that couldn't run on
64-bit you would not be so keen on making the switch!
I know of doctors who have perfectly good medical imaging equipment
worth more than $100,000 and that only run on DOS, these doctors have no
intentions of replacing their old operating systems with 64-bit Vista!
Less extreme than that are freelance professionals, or small
manufacturing or engineering firms who have expensive drafting software
and plotters, they too are in no hurry to spend $50,000 for new software
and hardware just to be in the 64-bit loop!
John
